Fracture Spacing Using StrataStim Workflow

Integrating data to optimize your frac treatment

Lyle Lehman StrataGen Engineering

Outline

Vertical to horizontal
What are the reasons?

Fracture Spacing/Completion Variables Case history the Cleveland sand Conclusions

Going sideways and liking it

As E&P companies develop unconventional assets, the need to expose more net pay has required that wellbores be placed horizontally in the pay zone.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

Recovery at 10 Years 50% (Cum/OGIP)

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Vertical Vertical Fraced 0.5 0.05 0.005 Horizontal 0.0005 Horizontal Axial Frac Horizontal Horizontal 5 Transv. 11 Transv. Fracs Fracs Incr Lf

Permeability md

Well Type

Completion Traditionally, Plug and Perf (PNP) procedures offered a method to place fractures where the practices
designing engineer wanted them The cost became prohibitive, both in equipment but mainly due to time
Most stimulation service companies incentivize the use of multi-stimulation valves to better utilize time on location

Some had higher Capital costs, but all allowed quicker completion time

Optimum production through better completion practices

Frac Length Xf

Perforation Spacing

Frac Conductivity Fcd

Net Pay (ft)

50 0.01-0.0006 8 35 0.44

The Cleveland

Permeability (md) Porosity (%) Water saturation (%) Reservoir pressure gradient (psig/ft) Top of pay (ft TVD) GOR (SCF/bbl) Length of lateral (ft) Reservoir temperature (0F)

8,000 3,500 4,400 185

Analysis Approach

Surveyed 55 wells recently completed in the Cleveland Created a statistical database, and generated average values Created a P10, 50 and 90 case for Permeability Used actual fracture spacing data, with frac treatment Generated a production decline curve for each P case Weighed-in economics with discounted cash flow Reported the results

Stimulation data used in reservoir simulations

Variable (ft) Fluid volume (gal) Proppant volume (lb) and type per fracture Propped length (ft) Fcd assuming 50% damage to pack

400 MFV 52,000 100,000 40/70 White Sand 521.4 54.478

200 PNP 34,888 33,000 40/70 White Sand 352.2 42.979

Note: Fcd values in both cases may appear to be excessive. Because of the low-formation permeability, the high value is easy to achieve. However, multi-phase flow was not considered when assuming the damage factor.

Color by

500

Oil Rate_MFV k=0.0035mD Gas Rate_MFC k=0.0035mD Oil Rate_PNP k=0.0035mD

Results

450

200 Spacing Gas

Gas Rate_PNP k=0.0035mD

400

350

300

400 Spacing Gas

250

200

150

200 Spacing Oil

100

50

400 Spacing Oil

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time Oil Rate_MFV k=0...., Gas Rate_MFC k=0...., Oil Rate_PNP k=0...., Gas Rate_PNP k=0....

Results of frac spacings

Years/ Spacing (ft)

200
727,659 1,034,149 1,393,344 1,665,456

400
145,664 226,742 382,604 503,534

1 2 5 10

Note: This case is the P50 permeability of 0.0035 md. The authors used a P90 case of 0.0006 md and P10 case of 0.01 md. Only in the P10 case did 400-ft spacing perform better than the below table represents.

$3,000,000

After Tax Discounted cash flow

$2,500,000 $2,000,000

200 Completion
$1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 2010 ($500,000) ($1,000,000) ($1,500,000) ($2,000,000) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

$400 Comp= $200*0.6475

400 Completion

How could this Doubling Proppant volume increased costs 15%, yet equalized the economics solution be on the NPV corrected?
Shortening the spacing to 200 improved NPV performance but increased costs 49% Shortening spacing to 231.5, using the same frac volumes surpassed the NPV set by the other jobs, but increased costs 37%

Conclusions

The main controlling factors for reservoir recovery in matrix-based reservoirs that are hydraulically fractured as part of the completion are:

Reservoir perm Reservoir pressure The combination of Fracture conductivity these variables creates a solution which effectively Propped length fit your economics Fracture spacing