SPE-199703-MS

Investigating Near-Wellbore Diversion Methods for Refracturing Horizontal

Wells

Junjing Zhang, Matt White, Jamie McEwen, Sam Schroeder, and David D. Cramer, ConocoPhillips

Copyright 2020, 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, 4-6 February
2020.

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
Near-wellbore diversion of fracturing fluid and proppant is a common objective when refracturing
horizontal wells for expanding treatment coverage within the lateral. There are five broad categories of near-
wellbore diversion methods: (1) particulate diversion for bridging open fractures connected to the wellbore,
(2) perforation sealing to limit injectivity into open perforation clusters at the wellbore, (3) filling up the
drained fracture system with water for achieving more uniform pressurization (i.e., fill-up), (4) injection
rate cycling/hesitation fracturing and (5) mechanical isolation by installing cemented or expandable liners
in the lateral followed by plug and perf stimulation. These tactics can be used in isolation or combined.
Particulate diverting agents can be additionally categorized by particle type (e.g., granular, fibrous) and
solubility characteristics. Perforation sealing agents consist of deformable and rigid/spherical subtypes, both
of which can be further categorized by solubility characteristics.
In this study, treatment and production data for 72 company-operated refractured wells in a North
America shale play were analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of the various near-wellbore diversion
methods and materials. An index was formulated using information on reservoir depletion to normalize
changes in bottom hole fracture pressure over time. This was determined by periodically discontinuing
injection to obtain instantaneous shut in pressures (ISIP’s) over the course of the treatment. The calculated
indices were plotted for each type of diverting system to compare trends for gaining insight on in-situ stress
buildup. Production data grouped by different diversion methods were also analyzed. The near-wellbore
diversion methods included mixed-size particulates with and without fibrous materials, deformable and rigid
perforation sealers, fill-up tactics in which near-wellbore diverting agents were not utilized and mechanical
isolation by cementing a newly installed liner in the lateral followed by plug and perf stimulation.
Frac hit analysis of offset well treatments indicated that refracturing treatments using particulate diverters
were heel biased with respect to reservoir re-pressurization. The study showed that the incremental pressure
as a result of diverter landing on perforations is a poor indication of diverter efficiency. Non-normalized
ISIP trend is misleading as an indicator for post-refracturing well performance. Refractured wells with either
particulate diverters or perforation sealers both show initial fluid fill-up into the depleted region before the
stress buildup plateaus. Wells that have liners installed and cemented inside the original wellbore and that
are then re-stimulated with standard plug-and-perf techniques show superior performance compared to all
2 SPE-199703-MS

other diversion methods. Choice of diversion can have a significant impact on results, but not all particulate
diverters or perforation sealers behave similarly. Wells refractured using only the fill-up method have long
term productivity on par with or better than wells refractured with most types of diverting agents.

Introduction
This section introduces the fracturing design evolution in unconventional reservoirs and the challenges of
production degradation after infill well production. It also reviews the refracturing technique as an important
mitigation approach to overcome the challenges.

Design Evolution and Well Interaction

Over the past decade, hydraulic fracturing in shale reservoirs has increased significantly in intensity,
featuring reduced frac-stage interval length, tighter perforation cluster spacing, and employing much larger
water and proppant volumes per foot of lateral (Weijers et al. 2019). Fracturing programs featuring a
relatively wide cluster spacing and small job size are often referred to as Vintage 1 or Vintage 2 job designs.
The high-intensity completion style in newer job designs has led to greater initial well production rates
and estimated ultimate well recoveries (EUR) (Leveille 2019). As exemplified in Fig. 1 for a specific
unconventional shale play, as cluster spacing was reduced from 70 ft in the Vintage 1 design to 15 ft in the
Vintage 4 design and accompanied by a proportionate increase in proppant volume, short-term cumulative
production per well doubled and EUR increased significantly. This finding suggests that under-sized old
vintage completions are prime targets for refracturing.

Figure 1—Fracturing design evolution and its impact on the well performance.

Production from old vintage or parent shale wells leads to non-uniform reservoir drainage and pressure
depletion in the vicinity of sparse conductive fractures that are connected to the parent well. During treatment
of infill wells utilizing new vintage job designs, the non-uniform pressure depletion and pre-existing
hydraulic fractures lead to asymmetrical fracture propagation in the direction of the parent wells. The high
differential pressure between the infill and parent wells can disturb the proppant pack in existing fractures
and cause downhole tubular failures in the parent wells (Whitfield et al. 2018). Significant production
degradation due to negative parent and infill well interactions have been reported (Miller et al. 2016).
Various approaches have been implemented in the field to mitigate negative interactions, such as pumping
far-field diverters (Zhang et al. 2019), reinjecting water into the parent wells (Whitfield et al. 2018) and
refracturing parent wells (Lindsay 2016). Refracturing serves a dual purpose by achieving production uplift
and also temporarily restoring energy in the parent well by recharging depleted fractures.
SPE-199703-MS 3

Horizontal Well Refracturing Technique

Refracturing has been touted as an effective way to increase well production since the 1950’s (Sallee and
Rugg 1953; Garland 1957). Vincent (2010) published a comprehensive review of refracturing, referencing
over 100 field studies and concluding that refracturing has been a successful approach for production uplift
in a wide variety of reservoir types and conditions. The success of refracturing has been attributed to many
possible mechanisms, including extension of existing fractures, restored fracture conductivity, propping
initially unpropped fractures and fracture reorientation due to depletion. However, there is rarely consensus
on the dominant mechanism associated with refracturing production uplift, even for the case of a single
oilfield in which thousands of refracturing jobs have been executed (Emrich et al. 2001; Sencenbaugh et al.
2001; Miller et al. 2004; Pagano 2016; Wolhart et al. 2007; Cramer 2008; Vincent 2010).
A key challenge for refracturing horizontal wells is the presence of numerous pre-existing perforations
and fractures. During the initial completion of horizontal wells, multi-stage fracturing is normally
performed, pumping proppant-laden fluids through ball-activated sleeves or more typically by using the
plug and perf technique. The limited entry approach is usually employed in plug and perf treatments to
achieve reasonable distribution among multiple perforation clusters (Cramer et al. 2019). However, limited
entry requires a small number of open perforations for effectiveness and is not feasible when numerous
perforations are exposed in the lateral as is typically the case in refracturing treatments. This limitation is
often accentuated by a significant tubular friction pressure gradient down the lateral, to the detriment of
intervals located farther down the wellbore. As a result, fluid and proppant tends to flow into intervals closest
to the heel and those with low reservoir pressure due to connection with conductive, drained fractures (Fig.
2). Therefore, refracturing results in horizontal wells can be improved by achieving effective fluid diversion
to extend treatment coverage throughout the lateral.

Figure 2—Illustration of a multi-stage fractured horizontal well with uneven reservoir depletion. Due to
frictional flow resistance down the lateral, fracturing fluids preferentially flow into the heel perforations.

Diversion Methods and Nomenclature

There are five broad categories of near-wellbore diversion methods: (1) particulate diversion for bridging
open fractures connected to the wellbore, (2) perforation sealing to limit injectivity into open perforation
clusters at the wellbore, (3) filling up the drained fracture system with water for achieving more uniform
pressurization (i.e., fill-up), (4) injection rate cycling/hesitation fracturing and (5) mechanical isolation
followed by plug and perf stimulation. Mechanical isolation is usually achieved by running smaller size
tubulars in the existing wellbore architecture in order to rebuild a new wellbore, such as running an
expandable liner, or installing a smaller diameter production liner which is cemented in place. Bullhead
refracturing usually refers to pumping through the existing wellbore and using near-wellbore diverters
between stages or cycles.
These tactics can be used in isolation or combined. Particulate diverting agents can be additionally
categorized by particle type (e.g., granular, fibrous) and solubility characteristics. Perforation sealing agents
consist of deformable and rigid/spherical subtypes, both of which can be further categorized by solubility
4 SPE-199703-MS

characteristics. In recent years, materials designed to dissolve with time in treatment and reservoir fluids
have been the preferred near-wellbore diverters (Glasbergen et al. 2006; Grieser et al. 2016).
Four common types of near-wellbore diverting agents are shown in Fig. 3. The particulate diverter is
composed of a broad range of particle sizes. Due to its smaller size, it is designed to pass through perforations
and bridge at fractures intersecting the wellbore. Rigid and deformable perforation sealers are intended to
seal off at the perforation. Particulate diversion is the most common approach used to re-stimulate horizontal
wells with multi-stage fractures.

Figure 3—Near wellbore diverter samples. Particulate diverter with large particulates blending with
small ones; rigid perforation sealers (Wang et al. 2012); flaky diverter; and fibrous material. Proprietary
near-wellbore diverters from other vendors experimented in this study are not shown in this figure.

Objective and Workflow

The objective for this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of common near-wellbore diversion methods,
based on the treatment data for 72 refractured wells in a North America shale play. The study workflow
is as follows.
1. Investigate near wellbore conditions in fractured horizontal wells.
2. Review refracturing candidate well conditions, diversion methods and field execution.
3. Analyze refracturing treatment pressure for different diversion methods.
4. Compare well performances for different diverter trials.
5. Identify production enhancement mechanism and common pitfalls.

Characterization of Near-Wellbore Conditions

This section reviews and characterizes the near-wellbore complexities where the diversion occurs during
refracturing.
SPE-199703-MS 5

Wellbore Conditions
Direct evidence of wellbore debris is observed during pre-refracturing wellbore cleanout runs that are
typically performed on candidate wellbores before refracturing. Debris recovered from the well includes
bridge plug parts, slip pieces and cement debris, as shown in Fig. 4(a). However, some of the debris can drop
out and settle to the heel section of the lateral. This is an endemic issue with coiled tubing cleanouts, due to
a lack of pipe rotation and limited circulation rate (Pawlik et al. 2014; Pope et al. 2017; Ryan et al. 2019).

Figure 4—Pre-refracturing wellbore conditions for a plug-and-perforated horizontal well with

multi-stage fractures. (a) Debris recovered from the candidate wellbore during the pre-job coiled
tubing cleanup; (b) caliper log results for a 5.5" casing interval indicating casing deformation.

Further complications can occur due to compromised casing integrity. The caliper log results in Fig. 4(b)
show casing deformation in the heel section of the lateral. Thousands of gallons of hydrochloric acid are
pumped during the initial fracturing treatments to improve injectivity. The removal of either cement or near-
wellbore rock outside of the casing by the acid leaves the casing poorly supported. Thus, the increased axial
loading can result in casing deformation in the vicinity of the perforations (Furui et al. 2009).
For bullhead refracturing, particulate diverter pills are dropped between pump cycles or stages.
The abovementioned wellbore complications can cause the diverter to build up at the restrictions and
deformation features, creating potential barriers for slurry movement within the wellbore. Poor wellbore
conditions provide a major hazard in mechanical isolation applications where a smaller size liner is run into
an existing perforated casing.

Near-Wellbore Complexities
In this study, the near-wellbore region is defined as the formation a few inches to a few feet away from
the wellbore. A series of drilling and completion events can impact near-wellbore conditions, including
removal of rock mass, invasion by overbalanced drilling fluids, exposure and debonding of the cement
sheath, perforation-induced rock removal and compaction, hydraulic fracturing and flowback. Throughout
these events, the near-wellbore region experiences multiple stress loading and unloading processes.
In most fracturing jobs, it is common to pump 1000 – 5000 gallons of hydrochloric acid (HCl) ahead of
the pad fluids to improve injectivity into the fracture, especially in formations where calcite is high, such
as the Eagle Ford and Bakken. Laboratory experiments have been performed to measure the acid-etched
rock volume (Cash et al. 2016). Fig. 5 shows the calculated acid-etched fracture width after flowing HCl
through created hydraulic fractures. In the referenced study, Layer D represents a limestone layer with high
calcite content, while Layer B represents a high TOC carbonate pay zone with lower calcite content.
6 SPE-199703-MS

Figure 5—Calculated acid-etched fracture width based on laboratory tests using samples with calcite
content ranging from 65% to 85% (Widths were calculated based on the results by Cash et al. 2016).

The stratigraphy for the studied shale play is characterized by interbedded layers of marl and limestone
as little as several inches thick. During the fracturing job, the initial fracture geometry is created by the
wellbore fluid. Acid following the wellbore fluid etches the created fracture surfaces. Due to variable calcite
content, the acid-etched fracture width in the limestone layer is about 0.10 inch larger than adjacent layers
with a lower calcite content such as marl. Portions of the etched fractures potentially remain open after the
treatments as unpropped wedges above settled beds of proppant.
When particulate diverters are pumped during refracturing treatments to bridge the fractures in the near-
wellbore region, this is more easily achievable within relatively narrow fractures adjacent to marl layers. For
the interbedded limestone layers, the wider etched fractures require more diverting material to effectively
establish a flow barrier. This is a potential reason for the mixed results associated with using particulates.

Refracturing Candidate and Job Execution

This section presents the candidate well conditions prior to refracturing, the diversion methods covered in
this study and an overview of the job execution.

Candidate Selection
A total of 72 refractured wells from the same unconventional play is evaluated in this study. Refracturing
candidates mainly have the Vintage 1 and 2 designs as illustrated in Fig. 1. These earlier generation
completion designs are associated with a significant volume of unstimulated and undrained rock due to the
relatively wide perforation cluster spacing and small job size. The candidate selection criteria have been
well addressed in previous publications (Vincent 2010; French et al. 2014).
Depending on the objectives, refracturing jobs are categorized into Opportunity Refracturing and
Defensive Refracturing. Both types of refracturing are intended to increase the well production, but
defensive refracturing also serves to protect the parent well from detrimental "frac hits" during offset,
infill well stimulation (Zhang et al. 2019). Therefore, the job design for the defensive refracturing needs to
consider the parent/infill wells system. Post-job production analysis also needs to be adjusted for defensive
refracturing wells, as they are in a system drainage while the opportunity refracturing wells are producing
without interference from offset wells.

Pre-Refracturing Well Performance

The 72 candidate wells had been producing for 2 – 7 years before refracturing (Fig. 6). In order to account for
various geologies, well completion designs and production strategies, this study uses long term productivity
indexes based on estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) to characterize the well performance and conditions
before refracturing.
SPE-199703-MS 7

Figure 6—Production time of candidate wells before refracturing.

Approximately 80% of the wells selected for this study produced 60%~80% of their estimated ultimate
recovery prior to refracturing (Fig. 7). As shown in Fig. 8, 70% of these wells have produced below their
respective type curves and 4 wells exceeded the type curve EUR by over 40%. Since initial conditions of
the candidate well can strongly impact post-refracturing well performance, these production indices will be
closely examined for selected wells grouped by diverter types.

Figure 7—Ratio of single-well cumulative production to its EUR before refracturing.

Figure 8—Ratio of single-well actual EUR to its type curve EUR before refracturing.
8 SPE-199703-MS

Refracturing Process and Operation

Bullhead refracturing involves the process of adding near-wellbore diverters to distribute fluid and proppant
among a large extent of the lateral, by restricting flow in favored channels, e.g., heel-ward perforation
clusters and depleted portions of the reservoir. Pumping service providers have developed methods to blend
and pump the near-wellbore diverters to accommodate their pumping equipment.
In a typical bullhead refracturing pump schedule, each stage or cycle has a consistent fluid volume.
Usually the proppant ramps are designed with the same approach as regular fracturing jobs except that
concise amounts or pills of near-wellbore diverter are pumped immediately after discontinuing proppant
addition. Fluid spacers between the proppant slurry and diverter pill are usually pumped. Some diverter
vendors recommend reducing the pump rate while landing the diverters on perforations, but others do not.
The mechanical isolation refracturing method involves a more complicated operational process. Wellbore
architecture for a cemented liner refracturing application is shown in Fig. 9. Additional steps typically
include: running a liner into the existing production casing string; cementing the liner/production casing
annulus; setting up for conventional plug-and-perf operations featuring use of a crane, e-line etc.; performing
a standard plug-and-perf fracturing operation at 15 ft geometric cluster spacing; and drilling out frac plugs
with coiled tubing. In the study area, near-wellbore diverting agents are not used in mechanical isolation
refracturing treatments since limited entry methods are applicable.

Figure 9—Perforations through the cemented liner inside existing casing string.

Clearly, there are many more moving parts in the mechanical isolation refracturing. Therefore, the
operational costs and associated risks are much higher in a mechanical isolation refracturing than with a
bullhead refracturing project.

Treatment Pressure Analysis

This section discusses refracturing treatment pressure analysis. Detailed analysis on the instantaneous
shut-in pressure (ISIP) and diverter landing pressure will be presented. This section also provides a field
observation that demonstrates heel-domination during a bullhead refracturing treatment.

Nomenclature and Diversion Methods

Candidate wells are selected from various production-type-curve areas where rock mechanical and reservoir
properties are also different. In order to compare well pressure responses, the key indices are normalized
so that wells from different areas are comparable.
In this study, the ISIP for each refracturing stage is normalized to the average ISIP of the initial fracturing
job (Eq. 1). Across the geologic region of the studied shale play, the in-situ closure stress gradient ranges
from 0.85 psi/ft to 0.97 psi/ft. The closure stress variation is also reflected in the ISIP gradient. Thus,
normalization of the refracturing ISIP to the respective ISIP during the initial fracturing helps to compensate
for geomechanical variations.
SPE-199703-MS 9

(1)

In addition to geomechanical differences, candidate wells have been depleted to differing levels. During
bullhead refracturing, the ISIP buildup is approximated as the stress buildup. Wells with more depletion are
in a less favorable condition because it takes more fluid volume to build up the stress compared to wells with
less depletion. Therefore, the concept of Depletion Adjusted ISIP is introduced, as shown in Eq. 2 and 3.

(2)

(3)

In refracturing, the fluid volume for each stage or cycle might be different. The real trends would
be obscured if the group ISIPs are simply plotted versus the stage number. Instead, a parameter Fluid
Replacement Ratio is proposed in this study to account for the varying stage volumes in different jobs (Eq. 4).

(4)

In the treatment pressure analysis, five diversion methods and a control group were applied in the 72
candidate wells. The diversion methods include two types of dissolvable particulate diverter systems, two
types of dissolvable perforation sealer systems and one mechanical isolation system, i.e., cemented liner
in existing production casing incorporating multiple limited entry, plug and perf treatments. In the control
group, near-wellbore diverters were not applied, with the only diversion tactic being water fill-up for
partially repressuring depleted intervals. The number of wells for each testing group is shown in Fig. 10.
The color scheme in this plot is consistent for the rest of the study.

Figure 10—Applied diversion methods and the percentage of well counts in this study.

Normalized ISIP Comparison

The normalized ISIP data are grouped and compared as per the diversion method (Fig. 11). The marked
range between 90% and 100% represents the desired treatment pressure response with the value of 100%
indicating that the stress buildup approaches the in-situ closure stress.
10 SPE-199703-MS

Figure 11—Normalized ISIP for refractured wells grouped by the diverter type.

With mechanical isolation using a cemented liner inside the existing casing, new perforation clusters
were added at a spacing of 15 ft, overlapping and filling gaps between existing perforations. The cement
sheath between the liner and production casing isolates the added perforations from the existing perforations.
Except for a few stages, the normalized ISIP for mechanical isolation stays above 90% of its original ISIP
with 15% of the data points exceeding the original ISIP (Fig. 11a). The overall trend for the mechanical
isolation resembles that of the fracturing job for a new well.
The trendline for the group without near-wellbore diverting agents is used as the baseline for the other
four bullhead refracturing groups in which four types of diverting agents were pumped (Fig. 11b). Clearly,
all bullhead refracturing data points share the same feature of an initially gradual stress buildup where
30% - 50% of normalized ISIP points fall below the desired range. Regardless of the type of near-wellbore
diverting agent utilized, all trends reflect the "fill-up" nature of bullhead refracturing where a great portion
of the injected fluids prefers to flow into existing depleted fractures until the pressure reaches a limit.
SPE-199703-MS 11

However, different near-wellbore diverters result in different ISIP responses. Diverter groups 1 and 4
show inconsistent trends where the actual ISIP sometimes reaches 100% of the original ISIP within 10%
of the fluid replacement ratio (Fig. 11c and Fig. 11f). Diverter 2 group demonstrates a similar trend to the
baseline, no-diverting-agent group (Fig. 11d). Diverter 3 group exhibits quick ISIP buildup after a small
injection volume of diverters (Fig. 11e).
Overall, ISIP trends for the mechanical isolation and no near-wellbore diverter groups represent two
distinctive natures of the refracturing design: (1) initiating fractures from new perforation locations; (2)
creating fracturing through existing fractures. Though some diverters create unique pressure responses, it
is difficult to differentiate diverter effectiveness simply based on the normalized ISIP.

Depletion Adjusted ISIP Comparison

To account for the different depletion levels, ISIP data was further adjusted to reflect the stress buildup as
more fluid is injected into the fractures (Fig. 12).

Figure 12—Depletion adjusted ISIP for refractured wells grouped by the diverter type.
12 SPE-199703-MS

For all groups, the depletion adjusted ISIP’s are more scattered than the normalized ISIP’s in the previous
discussion. Diverter 2 and Diverter 3 groups still stay relatively bundled. Compared with the baseline
case of no near-wellbore diversion, the datapoints for Diverter 2 group maintains the general shape as
the normalized ISIP’s shown above, while datapoints for the Diverter 4 group indicates poor control in
maintaining stress buildup as more fluid is injected. Diverter 3 group generates pressure responses similar
to the normalized ISIP trends. In general, after considering reservoir depletion in the ISIP analysis, more
details are disclosed in all groups with each type of diversion method exhibiting distinctive characteristics.

Diversion Pressure Analysis

As diverting agents land on the perforations or seal off the near-wellbore fractures, some flow paths are
plugged off and the fluid flows are more focused on fewer exit ports. This physical event can be examined
by comparing surface treatment pressure before and after landing of the diverting agent.
The pressure difference before and after particulate diverting agents landed on perforations was
calculated and the cumulative distribution for the pressure difference is shown in Fig. 13. All 167 data points
were quality checked to ensure the pressure variation was not induced by operational variations, such as
changing the injection rate. Based on the calculations, 10% of the events show a treating pressure decrease
after the diverter landed and 20% did not show any pressure variation. The P90 pressure increase reached
200 psi, but is not correlated with any type of diverter. In this study, the median pressure increase after
diverter landing is only 27 psi.

Figure 13—Cumulative distribution for landing pressure of particulate diverters.

A total of 167 landing pressure data points were calculated and plotted.

In the field tests, the particulate diverters had a size distribution that enabled passing through the
perforations to reach the fractures. As discussed previously, the near wellbore region has enlarged width due
to acid etching and perhaps erosion due to proppant. Thus, the particulate diverters might bridge at locations
far from the wellbore. Since there are numerous depleted fracture networks, sealing off a small part of the
fracture system does not create significant pressure disturbance as the subsequent fluids can flow into other
parts of the fracture system within a similar pressure range.

Observation of Frac Hits for Refractured Wells

Due to a lack of limited entry for fluid flow control, high pipe friction down the lateral and possible solid
settling in the wellbore, bullhead refracturing preferentially treats the heel section of the horizontal well. A
field case is presented in this study which provides compelling evidence of observed heel bias.
SPE-199703-MS 13

The lateral-to-lateral spacing between the refractured parent well and the infill well is about 500 ft (Fig.
14). The parent well was refractured first. The infill well stimulation started 2 days after the refracturing
job. During the infill well fracturing, the refractured parent well was shut in with a pressure gauge installed
on its wellhead to check for instances of pressure communication between the wells.

Figure 14—Parent and infill well diagram with the toe section of the infill well facing
the heel of the refractured parent well. The well lateral-to-lateral spacing is ~500 ft.

The pressure gauge data show that during stage 1 to 14 stimulation in the infill well, there is gradual
pressure increase with no direct fracture hit (Fig. 15). This interval overlapped the heel section of the
refractured parent well. Direct fracture-to-fracture communication occurred thereafter. Based on the seismic
derived faults map, this region does not have faults which could have facilitated the fracture communication.
The refractured well borehole was filled with water, thus the surface pressure responses reasonably reflect
downhole pressure perturbations.

Figure 15—Wellhead pressure of the refractured well monitored during the infill well fracturing. Direct fracture
communications were observed while fracturing the heel stages of the infill wells which face the toe side of the refracture well.

The differential pressure between the fractured well and the parent well drives the fracture
communication. The resistance to fracture communication early in the infill-well treatments suggests that
the heel section of the parent well was super charged with the fluid used in the refracturing treatment.
This pressure bank "defended" the wellbore from the infill well treatments. However, the increased
communication in toe section of the refractured well suggests a subdued fill-up effect in that part of the
well due to receiving an insufficient amount of injected water from the refracturing treatment. The heel
dominating treatment for bullhead refracturing has also been reported in tracer diagnostics studies (Leonard
et al. 2016).
14 SPE-199703-MS

Well Performance Analysis

Previous sections discussed the different treatment pressure responses for various diversion methods during
refracturing treatments. This section covers the evaluation of refractured well performance by different
diversion methods.

Well Performance for Various Diversion Methods

Fifty wells receiving bullhead refracturing treatments were selected for the production analysis. A variety of
production matrices can be used to characterize the performance of near-wellbore diverters. In this study, the
estimated ultimate well recovery (EUR) is selected for comparison, since short-term production is affected
by flowback practices and surface facility restrictions. EUR values are derived from both decline curve
analysis and productivity index versus cumulative production plots to ensure the results are not biased.
Incremental EUR Ratio is used to compare diverter performances. It is defined as the ratio of the
Incremental EUR after refracturing to the Single-Well Type Curve EUR (Eq. 5 and 6). Wells selected for this
study all have production histories long enough for reliable EUR calculations. For defensive refracturing
applications in which infill wells have been completed, the pre-refracturing EUR for the parent well is
adjusted by multiplying a discount factor to account for the production degradation with the presence of infill
wells. The discount factor is based on the infill well spacing and associated job size in each production type-
curve area. This correction also enables well performance comparison between opportunity refracturing
wells and defensive refracturing wells.

(5)

Where
(6)
Production ratios have been adjusted to show that refractured wells that did not use a near wellbore
diverting agent had an average Incremental EUR ratio equal to 1 (Fig. 16). As compared to this baseline
case of zero near-wellbore diverting agent, the average Incremental EUR ratios for wells in Diverter 1 and
4 groups are 30% lower. The average Incremental EUR ratio for wells in the Diverter 2 group exceeds the
baseline case by 40%, suggesting superior post-refracturing well performance.

Figure 16—Whisker plots for Incremental EUR ratio for wells using different near-
wellbore diverters. The series is ranked by the average incremental EUR ratio.

The large range of Incremental EUR ratio for wells in the Diverter 2 group (black color) shown
in the whisker plot are driven by a few high performing wells (Fig. 17). Though wells that have
SPE-199703-MS 15

experienced premature production decline during early production are "low-hanging fruits" for refracturing,
inappropriate near-wellbore diverter selection can lead to poor well performance. Six wells with only 2–3
years of production were refractured using three types of near-wellbore diverting agents. Among those wells
are three in the Diverter 2 group which showed an average Incremental EUR ratio of 1.76. The remaining
three wells utilizing alternate near-wellbore diverting agents had an average Incremental EUR ratio of only
0.83.

Figure 17—Refractured wells Incremental EUR Ratio versus the wells age before refracturing. Wells with shorter production
period are "low-hanging fruits" for refracturing, but diverter selection strongly impacts the post-refracturing well performance.

Effect of Candidate Well Performance

The length of production time before refracturing does not always account for production system
complexities in different type-curve areas. In an attempt to address this concern, the Incremental EUR ratio
was also plotted as a function of the Pre-Refracturing Well Recovery (%) based on the calculated EUR prior
to the frac treatment. Results are shown in Fig. 18.

Figure 18—Refractured wells Incremental EUR Ratio versus Pre-Refrac Well Recovery (%). Wells with a high pre-refracturing
recovery on a percentage basis could be caused by a suppressed pre-refracturing EUR value used in the calculation.

No single type of diverter provided universal success, but the frequency of achieving an Incremental
EUR Ratio greater than 1.0 is clearly greatest for wells in the Diverter 2 group. Five wells were refractured
with less than 60% of the projected EUR volume produced, but they only achieved an Incremental EUR
ratio ranging between 0.2 and 1.1. Wells refractured in the Diverter 2 group recovered 60%-70% of the
EUR before refracturing and show an Incremental EUR Ratio ranging between 0.7–2.6.
16 SPE-199703-MS

Wells with a high pre-refracturing recovery on a percentage basis could be attributable to a suppressed
pre-refracturing EUR value used in the calculation. A suppressed EUR could result from well completion
issues such as unaccounted lost tools or debris in the borehole or damage from kill fluids. The Ratio of
Pre-Refrac Actual to its Type Curve EUR is proposed to provide additional insight into this characteristic
of candidate well production performance (Fig. 19). For overachieving wells that exceed their type curve
EURs by 30%–60%, bullhead refracturing tends to generate a low Incremental EUR ratio.

Figure 19—Refractured wells Incremental EUR Ratio versus Ratio of Pre-Refrac Actual to its Type
Curve EUR. The production type curves are varied for different geologic areas and completion designs.

Opportunity Refracturing versus Defensive Refracturing

While the objectives of both opportunity and defensive refracturing treatments include production
enhancement, the latter also aims at reducing the occurrence of negative parent-child well interactions.
A subset of the studied refractured wells was selected to compare the post-refracturing well performance
for both opportunity and defensive refracturing. Conceptually, a well in which opportunity refracturing
was performed should achieve better well performance as it drains the reservoir in an unconfined state,
while defensive refracturing wells experience production degradation due to the competition from the offset
infill wells. In this study, the production degradation induced by infill wells was adjusted based on the well
spacing and fracturing job size. Thus, the bias is mitigated (Fig. 20).

Figure 20—Post refracturing well performance for defensive refracturing and opportunity refracturing
wells. Post refracturing incremental EUR is adjusted based on infill well spacing and fracturing job size.
SPE-199703-MS 17

Added Perforation in Bullhead Refracturing

During the early phase of the bullhead refracturing campaign, a field experimentation was executed to
evaluate the potential of production uplift by adding perforations between existing perforations. Production
forecasts from reservoir simulation indicated that adding perforation intervals should result in significant
production uplift, based on the premise that new fractures would be successfully initiated and propagated.
Production analysis was performed for comparable wells refractured during the same time period using
the same near-wellbore diversion system. Results indicate that refractured wells with added perforations did
not provide better production in comparison to wells without added perforations (Fig. 21). The lack of results
from adding perforations seem to indicate that in bullhead refracturing, new fractures cannot be effectively
initiated and propped from the added perforations, even when using particulate diverters. Another postulated
mechanism is that pressure depletion in the reservoir rock surrounding previously created fractures leads
to stress field reversal within the depletion envelope and consequent steering of new fractures from the
old perforation clusters and fractures into the undrained regions between the original perforation clusters
(Weng and Siebrits 2007).

Figure 21—Post refracturing well performance for bullhead refractured

wells with added perforations versus no added perforations.

Correlation with Other Variables

Other examined variables potentially influencing well performance include refracturing job size, lateral
length, diverter amount and hesitation diversion mechanism.
During bullhead refracturing, proppant slurry exits the perforations and enters the existing fracture
system. The possible production enhancement mechanisms include extension of current fracture geometries
and continuous placement of proppants at initially unpropped or sparsely proppant fractures. Results in Fig.
22 show that refracturing proppant volume does not correlate with the post-refracturing well performance
for all diverter groups. This suggests that much of the proppant is placed at non-productive fractures or
disconnected from the wellbore.
18 SPE-199703-MS

Figure 22—Post refracturing well performance for bullhead refractured wells versus refracturing proppant mass
per lateral length. Refracturing proppant volume does not correlate with the post-refracturing well performance.

Conceptually, wells with shorter lateral length could have an advantage over long laterals because of
fewer open perforation clusters leading to more focused energy at the individual perforation clusters.
However, the shorter laterals do not seem to benefit from the slightly more focused fluid entry, as illustrated
in Fig. 23. For wells with the same diverting system, the lateral length does not correlate with the production
performance indicator. Apparently, the impact of inefficient diverter distribution and proppant placement
among perforations overwhelm any advantage provided by the short intervals for the studied unconventional
asset.

Figure 23—Post refracturing well performance for bullhead refractured wells versus the lateral
length. Well lateral length does not correlate with the post-refracturing well performance

Laboratory testing has provided little guidance to designing the optimal diverter pill due to the limitations
on fracture dimension and fixed fracture boundary conditions. Increasing the diverter amount might achieve
better fluid diversion, but the risk of diverter deposition in the wellbore also significantly rises. The
Incremental EUR ratio is plotted against the amount of near-wellbore diverter for wells in the Diverter 2
group (Fig. 24). Generally, the Incremental EUR ratio increases as more diverting agent is added per pill until
a certain limit is reached. Above this limit, a greater quantity of diverting agent does not achieve additional
SPE-199703-MS 19

benefits. However, a correlation of diverter quantity versus incremental production is not observed in the
other diverter groups.

Figure 24—Post refracturing well performance for bullhead refractured

wells versus the diverter amount per pill for wells in Diverter Group 2.

It has been postulated that sudden changes in or cycling of injection rate during fracturing can induce
formation spalling which can lead to altered fracture pathways (Kiel 1977). Additional field cases were
presented that injection rate cycling increases the number of microseismic events and well production
(Ciezobka et al. 2016). It has been suggested to pump "ghost stages" utilizing injection rate fluctuation but
without diverting agents to compare results to stages utilizing diverting agents (Senters et al. 2018).
During refracturing treatments in the study area, instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) is acquired after
each stage. The shutdown event between stages is a form of rate cycling. As shown in Fig. 25, the number of
shutdowns per well shows no correlation with the Incremental EUR Ratio for all diverter types, indicating
that rate cycling has a low potential for achieving production uplift in the study area.

Figure 25—Post refracturing well performance for bullhead refractured wells versus number of job shutdowns
during refracturing. Number of shutdowns does not correlate with the post-refracturing well performance.
20 SPE-199703-MS

Discussion
Although the degree of production enhancement from refracturing is impacted by multiple factors, the
diversion system employed in the treatments appears to be an important element in the process. Wells treated
with suboptimal diverting systems performed on par with or worse than the baseline case, i.e., wells that
did not use any form of near-wellbore diverting agent. However, wells utilizing an optimal near-wellbore
diverting agent experienced an Incremental EUR Ratio that was 40% greater on average than the baseline
case.
Depending on the size of the diverting agent relative to the perforation entry hole diameter, near-wellbore
diverters either seal the perforations or enter freely through the perforations and bridge at the fractures.
When the perforation hole is plugged by the diverter, it completely shuts off the fracture system behind the
casing. Raterman et al (2019) presented sampled fractures from an observation well which was offset to a
fractured well with multi-stage transverse fractures (Fig. 26). Between the projected perforation locations
(purple symbols), there are numerous fractures that are created during hydraulic fracturing. Only a small
portion of these fractures appear to have high conductivity. The rest of fractures are inferred to be either
unpropped or sparsely propped.

Figure 26—Fractures sampled from a cored observation well. Hydraulic fractures are grey ticks. Pressure
gauge locations are orange circles. Projected perforation locations from the offset fractured well are
in the purple circles. Conductive fractures are the black ticks. Graph prepared by Raterman et al. 2019.

Proppant placement during bullhead refracturing in unconventional reservoirs is a multi-cycle process

as there is no limited entry to focus the fluid energy into fixed perforations. If a perforation is effectively
plugged off by diverters, the adjacent poorly propped fractures (grey ticks) might lose the opportunity to
further receive proppant slurry. Though all diverting agents used in the study are degradable, dissolution is
not designed to occur during the time span of refracturing.
There are also occasions where perforations need to be fully closed, such as the highly depleted intervals
or the over-treated clusters in new wells. Smaller size particulate diverters have much less chance to bridge
off at the perforations and shut off the perforation as effectively as some other aggressive perforation sealers.
Therefore, the optimal diverter design depends on the specific application and is an operation driven trial-
and-error process.
There are many approaches to characterize the parent well conditions before refracturing. In this study,
the type curve production for the individual well is chosen because in the studied area, there is a relatively
high confidence in the production type curve with the large well counts. Type curve production represents
the expectation for the well performance under specific completion design in the geologic region. Since
it is generated only for a specific type of completion with heavy emphasis on perforation cluster spacing,
fracturing job size and well spacing/stacking strategy, caution needs to be taken if any one of these variables
is changed during refracturing.
During the job execution, diverter application steps need to be carefully documented. Field product
quality inspection should be performed regularly, as many products share the same generic name while their
components and material quality vary significantly.
SPE-199703-MS 21

Conclusion
Following conclusions are reached in this study.

• In the study area, 72 company-operated parent wells were refractured with four types of near-
wellbore diverting agents, one type of mechanical isolation system and a control group that did
not use a near-wellbore diverting agent. All wells were used for treatment pressure analysis and
50 wells were selected for the production evaluation.
• Non-normalized Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure (ISIP) can be misleading as an indicator for
refracturing diversion performance. An adjustment for well depletion should be implemented when
analyzing the ISIP.
• Treatment pressure increments after the diverter lands at perforations or fractures tend to be random
and are not correlated with diverter effectiveness.
• Wells that have liners installed and cemented inside the original wellbore and that are then re-
stimulated with standard plug-and-perf techniques show superior pressure responses compared to
all diversion methods utilized in bullhead refracturing treatments.
• The choice of diverting agent can significantly influence treatment results. Wells utilizing a suitable
near-wellbore diverting agent experienced an Incremental EUR Ratio that was 40% greater on
average than the baseline cases where no near-wellbore diverters were pumped.
• Wells refractured without near-wellbore diverters have long-term production performance on par
with or better than wells refractured with unsuitable diverting systems.
• With the existing dataset, refracturing job size, lateral length and rate-cycling do not appear to
drive well performance.
• Refractured wells with either particulate diverters or perforation sealers both show initial fluid fill-
up into the depleted region before the stress buildup plateaus.
• More data is needed to validate the observation that an optimal diverter amount exists above which
diverter pills start to impair well production.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank ConocoPhillips management, specifically Jeffrey Spencer, Manager, Global
Completions Engineering, Eric Davis, Global Completions Chief and David Forbes, General Manager,
Global Wells for their reviews and approval of the paper. The authors would also like to thank the
business unit engineering and operations team members, Juan Vargas, Hannah Duncan, Austin Shields,
Chad Darneal, Justin Hammond, Steve Brierty, Evan Lamoreux and Juan Martinez who have been part of
the program and provided strong support to drive the design changes.

Reference
Cash, R., Zhu, D., & Hill, A. D. 2016. Acid Fracturing Carbonate-Rich Shale: A Feasibility Investigation of Eagle
Ford Formation. Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Hydraulic Fracturing Conference, 24-26 August, Beijing, China.
SPE-181805-MS. http://doi:10.2118/181805-MS.
Ciezobka, J., Maity, D., & Salehi, I. 2016. Variable Pump Rate Fracturing Leads to Improved Production in the Marcellus
Shale. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 9-11 February, The Woodlands, Texas,
USA. SPE-179107-MS. http://doi:10.2118/179107-MS.
Cramer, D. D. 2008. Stimulating Unconventional Reservoirs: Lessons Learned, Successful Practices, Areas for
Improvement. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Reservoirs Conference, 10-12 February, Keystone, Colorado,
USA. SPE-114172-MS. http://doi:10.2118/114172-MS.
Cramer, D., Friehauf, K., Roberts, G., & Whittaker, J. 2019. Integrating DAS, Treatment Pressure Analysis and Video-
Based Perforation Imaging to Evaluate Limited Entry Treatment Effectiveness. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition, 5-7 February, The Woodlands, Texas, USA. SPE-194334-MS.
http://doi:10.2118/194334-MS.
22 SPE-199703-MS

Emrich, C., Shaw, D., Reasoner, S., & Ponto, D. 2001. Codell Restimulations Evolve to 200% Rate of Return. Presented
at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium, 24-27 March, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. SPE-67211-MS. http://
doi:10.2118/67211-MS.
French, S., Rodgerson, J., & Feik, C. 2014. Re-fracturing Horizontal Shale Wells: Case History of a Woodford Shale Pilot
Project. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 4-6 February, The Woodlands, Texas,
USA. SPE-168607-MS. http://doi:10.2118/168607-MS.
Furui, K., Fuh, G.-F., Abdelmalek, N. A., & Morita, N. 2009. A Comprehensive Modeling Analysis of Borehole Stability
and Casing Deformation for Inclined/Horizontal Wells Completed in a Highly Compacting Chalk Formation. Presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 4-7 October, New Orleans, Louisiana. SPE-123651-MS.
http://doi:10.2118/123651-MS.
Garland, T.M. Elliott, W.C., Dolan, P. and Dobyns, R.P. 1957. Effects of Hydraulic Fracturing Upon Oil Recovery from
the Strawn and Cisco Formations in North Texas. Report of Investigation 5371, Page 31. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines.
Glasbergen, G., Todd, B. L., Van Domelen, M. S., & Glover, M. D. 2006. Design and Field Testing of a Truly Novel
Diverting Agent. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas,
U.S.A., 24-27 September 2006. SPE-102606-MS. http://doi:10.2118/102606-MS.
Grieser, B., Calvin, J., & Dulin, J. 2016. Lessons Learned: Refracs from 1980 to Present. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 9-11 February, The Woodlands, Texas, USA.
SPE-179152-MS. http://doi:10.2118/179152-MS.
Kiel, O. M. 1977. The Kiel Process Reservoir Stimulation By Dendritic Fracturing. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
SPE-6984-MS.
Leonard, R. S., Woodroof, R. A., Senters, C. W., Wood, T. M., & Drylie, S. W. 2016. Evaluating and Optimizing Refracs
- What the Diagnostics Are Telling Us. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 26-28
September, Dubai, UAE. SPE-181676-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/181676-MS.
Leveille, G. P. 2019. https://static.conocophillips.com/files/resources/2019-02-19-barclays-shale-technology-leveille-
fina.pdf. Barclays Shale Oil Technical Teach In.
Lindsay, G. J., White, D. J., Miller, G. A., Baihly, J. D., & Sinosic, B. 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.
Miller, G., Lindsay, G., Baihly, J., & Xu, T. 2016. Parent Well Refracturing: Economic Safety Nets in an Uneconomic
Market. Presented at the SPE Low Perm Symposium, 5-6 May, Denver, Colorado, USA. SPE-180200-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/180200-MS.
Miller, J. D., Ponto, D. A., & Reasoner, S. J. 2004. Fracturing Fluid Viscosity Profiles Determine Well Productivity in a
Remedially Stimulated Tight Gas Reservoir. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 26-29
September, Houston, Texas. SPE-90194-MS. http://doi:10.2118/90194-MS.
Pagano, T.A. 2016. Rock Properties, Deliverability Mechanism Influence Codell Restimulation. Oil & Gas Journal, July
10: 44 – 47.
Pawlik, M., Champagne, J., Whitworth, J., & Trebing, C. 2014. Optimizing Frac Plug Mill Outs in Horizontal Wells using
Coiled Tubing. Presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition, 25-26
March, The Woodlands, Texas, USA. SPE-168279-MS. http://doi:10.2118/168279-MS.
Pope, C., Charlton, A., Inscore, J., Epperson, R., & Sumner, B. 2017. Stop, Drop and Circulate; An Engineered Approach
to Coiled Tubing Drillouts. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 9-11 October, San
Antonio, Texas, USA. SPE-187337-MS. http://doi:10.2118/187337-MS.
Raterman, K., Liu, Y., & Warren, L. 2019. Analysis of a Drained Rock Volume: An Eagle Ford Example. Presented
at the SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, 22-24 July, Denver, Colorado, USA.
URTEC-2019-263-MS. http://doi:10.15530/urtec-2019-263.
Ryan, M., Gohari, K., Bilic, J., Livescu, S., Lindsey, B. J., Johnson, A., & Baird, J. 2019. Challenging the Industry’s
Understanding of Hole Cleaning During the Drillouts of Frac Plugs with a New Holistic Approach. Presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 30 September - 2 October, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. SPE-195865-
MS. http://doi:10.2118/195865-MS.
Sallee, W. L. and Rugg, F. E. 1953. Artificial Formation Fracturing in Southern Oklahoma and North-Central Texas.
AAPG Bulletin 37(11): 2539 – 2550.
Sencenbaugh, R. N., Lytle, D. M., Birmingham, T. J., Simmons, J. C., & Shaefer, M. T. 2001. Restimulating Tight Gas
Sand: Case Study of the Codell Formation. Presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Petroleum Technology Conference,
21-23 May, Keystone, Colorado. SPE-71045-MS. http://doi:10.2118/71045-MS.
SPE-199703-MS 23

Senters, C. W., Johnson, M. D., Leonard, R. S., Ramos, C. R., Squires, C. L., Wood, T. M., & Woodroof, R. A. 2018.
Diversion Optimization in New Well Completions. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference
and Exhibition, 23-25 January, The Woodlands, Texas, USA. SPE-189900-MS. http://doi:10.2118/189900-MS.
Vincent, M. C. 2010. Refracs: Why Do They Work, and Why Do They Fail in 100 Published Field Studies? Presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 19-22 September 2010. SPE-134330-
MS. http://doi:10.2118/134330-MS.
Wolhart, S. L., McIntosh, G. E., Zoll, M. B., & Weijers, L. 2007. Surface Tiltmeter Mapping Shows Hydraulic Fracture
Reorientation in the Codell Formation, Wattenberg Field, Colorado. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, 11-14 November, Anaheim, California, U.S.A. SPE-110034-MS. http://doi:10.2118/110034-MS.
Wang, D., Wang, X., Liu, G., & Economides, M. 2012. A New Way of Staged Fracturing Using Ball Sealers. SPE
Production & Operations, 27(3): 278 – 283. https://doi.org/10.2118/140529-PA.
Weijers, L., Wright, C., Mayerhofer, M., Pearson, M., Griffin, L., & Weddle, P. 2019. Trends in the North American Frac
Industry: Invention through the Shale Revolution. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference
and Exhibition, 5-7 February, The Woodlands, Texas, USA. SPE-194345-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/194345-MS.
Weng, X., Siebrits, E. 2007. Effect of Production-Induced Stress Field on Refracture Propagation and Pressure Response.
Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 29-31 January, College Station, Texas, U.S.A.
https://doi.org/10.2118/106043-MS.
Whitfield, T., Watkins, M. H., & Dickinson, L. J. 2018. Pre-Loads: Successful Mitigation of Damaging Frac Hits in the
Eagle Ford. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 24-26 September, Dallas, Texas, USA.
SPE-191712-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/191712-MS.
Zhang, J., Cramer, D. D., McEwen, J., White, M., & Bjornen, K. 2019. Use of Far-Field Diverters To Mitigate
Parent- and Infill-Well-Fracture Interactions in Shale Formations. SPE Production & Operations. July 2019. https://
doi.org/10.2118/194329-PA.