SPE-185782-MS

Investigation of the Economic Impact of Parent Well Protection Treatments

in Unconventional Plays

Karan Dhuldhoya and Ron Dusterhoft, Halliburton

Copyright 2017, SPE Europec featured at 79th EAGE Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Europec featured at 79th EAGE Conference and Exhibition held in Paris, France, 12–15 June 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
Because commodity prices have substantially decreased since peaking in late 2014, operators have
implemented strategies that focus on the most prolific acreage and have concentrated drilling activities
on the "sweet spots" in many unconventional plays. This development practice has resulted in decreased
well spacing and infill (development) wells being drilled in close proximity to parent (delineation) wells,
causing lower productivity than expected in many development wells because of drainage area and fracture
interference. Many operators use a method known as parent well protection (PWP) to help mitigate this
effect and increase recovery from both parent (delineation) and closely offsetting development (child) wells.
This paper presents an analysis of the economic impact of PWP treatments performed for repressurizing
the reservoir system and chemical stimulation of the parent well.
This evaluation of PWP production benefits was performed using a combination of numerical reservoir
simulation with advanced gridding and reservoir modeling capabilities and economic analysis tools for
net present value (NPV) evaluation. Advanced modeling capabilities helped enable grid transformation
of the simulation grid at the time of completion of the infill well to simulate the effects of drainage area
interference. Wellbore flow parameter alterations modeling near-wellbore (NWB) and skin damage effects
were implemented. In addition to fracture interference mitigation, NWB damage remediation of the parent
well was implemented at varying magnitudes to simulate the effects of a chemical stimulation treatment
performed in conjunction with the repressurization treatment. An analysis of the fiscal impact of the PWP
treatment with water only and PWP treatment with stimulation fluids was performed to determine the
scenario with optimal NPV.
Results indicated that substantial benefit can be realized through PWP treatments. The primary goal of
the PWP treatment is to help prevent production loss in the parent well and mitigate production interference
from the child well completion. Production interference is caused by asymmetric fracture growth from the
child well completions into the depleted region around the parent well (typically the area of least stress).
Simulation results showed that mitigation of asymmetric fracture growth can result in an increase in 4-year
cumulative recovery of up to 21%. Chemical stimulation treatments addressing only NWB/skin damage can
result in an increase in 4-year cumulative recovery of up to 16%. Combining both resulted in an increase
of up to 36%. The break-even price for the cost of the PWP treatment, rate of return (ROR), and return on
2 SPE-185782-MS

investment (ROI) were evaluated and associated with the cumulative production of the various reservoir
models. This paper presents case histories and examples of PWP treatments.
The benefits of PWP treatments cannot only be evaluated based on the incremental recovery in the parent
well, but should also take into account production loss from fracture interference in both the parent and
child wells. Increased recovery and economics can be achieved through stimulation of the parent well in
conjunction with repressurizing, prior to completion of the child well.

Introduction
Unconventional development practices have continued to expand the boundaries of completion intensity
and well spacing. Reduced parallel lateral spacing and infill well development in close proximity to previous
(parent) wells have become common in many unconventional basins. Some operators have reported drilling
programs with lateral spacing reduced to 330 and 440 ft (Devon Energy 2016). In many unconventional
assets, delineation or parent wells are often drilled to hold the lease and initiate production on the leasing
unit. Usually, the asset is completed with development or child wells after the parent well has been on
production for a period of time. Pressure sinks, which are caused by depletion of a previously stimulated and
produced region or well, can hinder fracturing stimulation effectiveness (Martinez et al. 2012). The pressure
sink creates a path of least resistance; fractures tend to grow toward this sink during subsequent nearby
treatments. This can lead to fracture "bashing" (the growth of fractures into an offset well or fractures) and
production interference between the drainage areas of the delineation and development/infill wells. This
effect can often be magnified by reduced parallel lateral spacing along with the pressure sinks and can result
in severe fracture or well bashing (Diakhate et al. 2015; Miller et al. 2016) causing lower productivity than
expected in many development wells because of the drainage area and fracture interference.
Miller et al. (2016) discuss the effects of infill well drilling on parent wells. Classification for infill
(child) wells were such that the child well was within 2000 ft from the parent well and put on production
at least 6 months after parent well production had begun. Different effects have been observed in various
unconventional plays with regards to parent-child well interaction. In the Eagle Ford, Woodford, and
Niobrara shales, infill well development has negatively impacted parent well production a majority of the
time, with most of the negative effects being long term (i.e., a shifting of the production curve downward
for a prolonged period). However, in the Bakken and Haynesville shales, there is a high probability that
the child well development could have a positive or no impact on parent well productivity (Fig. 1). This
paper primarily focuses on the former case in which infill well development has a negative effect on the
productivity of both the parent and child wells.
SPE-185782-MS 3

Figure 1—Observed probability of effects from child wells fractured <2,000 ft,
18 months or more after the parent well's first production (Miller et al. 2016).

Recently, operators have been exploring PWP to help mitigate this effect and increase recovery from
both delineation and development wells. This paper presents an analysis of the economic impact of PWP
treatments performed for repressurizing the reservoir system while also evaluating the effect of chemical
stimulation (NWB damage remediation) of the delineation (parent) well.

Workflow Methodology
The workflow employed rigorous numerical reservoir simulation with unstructured autogridding
functionality for simulation of different scenarios. Unstructured gridding capability allowed for overlap of
fractures and explicit gridding of a discrete fracture network (DFN) with various complexities. Some such
complexities included the following:

• Varying orientation of fractures non-orthogonal to the wellbore or primary fractures

• Intersection, overlap, or curvature of fractures

• Geomodel implementation in conjunction with DFN gridding

For the purposes of this paper, the overlap of the stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) between the child
and parent well capability was instrumental in evaluating the impact on recovery in various scenarios. In
addition, advanced transformation functionality was utilized, which helped enable grid transformation of
the simulation grid at the time of infill well completion to simulate the effects of drainage area interference.
Wellbore flow parameter alterations were implemented to model NWB and skin damage effects. In addition
to fracture interference mitigation, NWB damage remediation was implemented at varying magnitudes to
simulate the effects of a chemical stimulation treatment in conjunction with the repressurization treatment
of a parent well. An analysis of the fiscal impact of the PWP treatment and PWP treatment with stimulation
fluids was performed to determine the scenario with optimal NPV.

Reservoir Model Setup

The reservoir models primarily focused on two main parameters with different scenarios modeling the
influence of these parameters:
4 SPE-185782-MS

• Reduction or increase in the percentage of overlap in SRV or drainage area (Ad) resulting from
repressurization or PWP treatments
• Reduction in the NWB or skin damage present in the model through chemical stimulation fluids
used in conjunction with a PWP/repressurization treatment
Dahl et al. (2016) outlined the detrimental impact that skin and NWB damage can have on well
productivity and the benefits of remediating such damage. Many publications have discussed the impact
that fracture interference and parent well refracturing/protection can have on asset productivity (Morales et
al. 2016; Diakhate et al. 2015; Miller et al. 2016; Courtier et al. 2016; Walser and Siddiqui 2016); however,
there is no literature addressing the impact of mitigating and/or remediating both issues.
The reservoir model was based on a prolific and developed region of the Eagle Ford play in the Karnes
Trough region. A synthetic two-well model was developed based on representative properties for this region
where the child well was assumed to be the same well design and completed/fracture stimulated using
the same design as parent well. Tables 1 through 3 show the reservoir, reservoir layer, and well/fracture
properties, respectively. Fig. 2 depicts the stratigraphy of the reservoir layers in the model by formation.
Fig. 3 is an orthographic (map view) of the base case in which approximately 30% overlap exists between
the SRVs of each well.

Table 1—Reservoir properties of synthetic model based on the Karnes Trough region of the Eagle Ford play.

Reservoir

Field Eagle Ford—Karnes Trough

Target of lateral Lower Eagle Ford (LEFD) 2

Thickness 210 ft (130 ft LEFD)

Avg. porosity 10%

Permeability .004 mD

Psat 4,300 psi

Critical gas saturation (Sgc) 7.50%

Bottomhole pressure 10,850 psi

Bottomhole temperature 320°F

Sw initial 25%

Fluid type Volatile oil

Fluid model Synthetic black-oil table

Table 2—Reservoir layer properties.

Average
Average
Formation Permeability
Porosity (%)
(μd)

Upper Eagle Ford 1 7 4

Upper Eagle Ford 2 10 0.4

Lower Eagle Ford 1 12 4

Lower Eagle Ford 2 12 4

Pepper Shale 11 NA
SPE-185782-MS 5

Table 3—Well and fracture information in the two-well reservoir model setup.

Well/Fracture

Avg. true vertical

12,850 ft
depth (TVD) of lateral

Lateral length 5,000 ft

Well lateral azimuth N25W

Well lateral spacing 410 ft

Total fractures 50

Fracture spacing 100 ft

Fracture lengths 400 ft (tip-to-tip)

Figure 2—Graphical representation of layers in reservoir simulation grid.

Figure 3—Perspective view of base case in reservoir model depicting

the fractures and SRV of the parent (Well1) and child (Well2) wells.

The reservoir simulation models were performed for 4 years. The parent well in each model was also
producing for a period of 4 years. After 2 years, the infill well was placed online, and the combined well
production was simulated for the remaining 2 years. Matrix properties were assigned to the cells in the
6 SPE-185782-MS

SRV of the child well initially. At the time of completion of the child well, grid transformation functions
were implemented to assign fracture properties to the area that was stimulated. At the end of the 4 years,
cumulative recovery was predicted from the entire grid for varying scenarios of the outcome of PWP to
mitigate fracture interference/SRV overlap and chemical stimulation of the parent well.

Reservoir Models
Reservoir models were created to evaluate the different scenarios and outcomes of a PWP along with the
fluid stimulation. To model the effects of a potential PWP treatment, four scenarios were modeled with
regard to prospective fracture growth of the child well in the presence or absence of a PWP treatment to the
parent. These four scenarios were represented as follows (Fig. 4):

Figure 4—Pictorial representation of the four PWP scenarios. Repressure 1: 27% overlap between
child-parent well SRVs; Repressure 2: 46% overlap between child-parent well SRVs; Repressure 3: 7%
overlap between child-parent well SRVs; Repressure S: no overlap between child-parent well SRVs.

• Repressure 1: represents the base case in which there is a ~27% overlap between the SRVs of the
child and parent wells
• Repressure 2: represents the case in which there is extreme asymmetric fracture growth in the child
well resulting in ~46% overlap between the SRVs of the child and parent wells
• Repressure 3: represents the case in which a PWP treatment was performed before child well
development, reducing the overlap between the SRVs of the child and parent wells to 7%
• Repressure S (symmetric): represents the case in which a PWP treatment resulted in no overlap
between the Ad and SRVs of the parent and child wells
Through wellbore flow parameters, NWB and skin damage were incorporated into the reservoir model
representing reservoir behavior and characteristics observed in many unconventional plays (Dahl et al.
2016). Three different scenarios were modeled to evaluate the potential effects of a chemical stimulation
treatment. The implementation of the simulated stimulation treatment was performed concurrently with the
SPE-185782-MS 7

PWP treatment. The three different fluid stimulation scenarios are as follows and were simulated with each
of the repressurization scenarios:

• No NWB damage reduction in the parent well

• NWB damage reduction of 33% in the parent well after 2 years

• NWB damage reduction of 66% in the parent well after 2 years

Results
Each repressurization case was performed in combination with each chemical stimulation case, resulting
in a total of 12 scenarios modeled.

No Chemical Stimulation Performed on the Parent Well

These modeling efforts represented scenarios of varying degrees of production/fracture interference
between the parent-child well with no fluid stimulation (i.e., damage reduction) performed on the parent
well (Fig. 5). The upper graph is the daily oil rate (BOPD) vs. time for the entire simulation grid consisting of
both wells while the lower graph is cumulative oil production (MSTB) vs. time for the entire simulation grid.

Figure 5—A 4-year simulation forecast displaying oil rate and cumulative oil production of the field
for the various repressurization outcomes with no chemical stimulation treatment of parent well.

For the case of extreme asymmetric fracture growth (46% overlap in SRV), the 4-year simulated
cumulative production was 768 thousand barrels of oil equivalent (MBOE) (17:1). A 17 Mscf:1 bbl
8 SPE-185782-MS

economic conversion rate rather than a standard 6:1 energy conversion rate was used for the purposes of
economic evaluation and comparison. The base case (27% overlap in SRV) resulted in 4-year cumulative
production of 872 MBOE. The scenarios with mild overlap (7% overlap in SRV) and symmetric fracture
growth in the child well (no overlap in SRV) resulted in 914 and 929 MBOE, respectively. A 21% increase
in cumulative production was observed from the most extreme case to the best case scenario.
The pressure depletion maps in Fig. 6 show sequential depletion of the reservoir at various time steps for
the Repressure 1 case, with no damage reduction can be seen for the field.

Figure 6—Pressure depletion maps showing sequential depletion of the reservoir at various
times steps for the Repressure 1 case with no chemical stimulation treatment in the parent well.

Chemical Stimulation Performed on the Parent Well Resulting in 33% Damage Reduction
These models represented the scenarios of varying degrees of production/fracture interference between the
parent-child well combined with a fluid stimulation treatment performed on the parent well, resulting in
33% NWB damage reduction in the parent well (Fig. 7).
For the case of extreme asymmetric fracture growth (46% overlap in SRV), the 4-year simulated
cumulative production was 840 MBOE (17:1). The base case (27% overlap in SRV) resulted in 4-year
cumulative production of 942 MBOE. The scenarios with mild overlap (7% overlap in SRV) and symmetric
fracture growth in the child well (no overlap in SRV) resulted in 984 and 998 MBOE, respectively. A 19%
increase in cumulative production was observed from the most extreme case to the best case scenario.
SPE-185782-MS 9

Figure 7—A 4-year simulation forecast displaying oil rate and cumulative oil production
of the field for the various repressurization outcomes, with a chemical stimulation
treatment performed in the parent well resulting in 33% NWB damage reduction.

Chemical Stimulation Performed on the Parent Well Resulting in 66% Damage Reduction
These models represented the scenarios with varying degrees of production/fracture interference between
the parent-child well combined with a chemical fluid stimulation treatment performed in the parent well,
resulting in 66% NWB damage reduction in the parent well (Fig. 8).
10 SPE-185782-MS

Figure 8—A 4-year simulation forecast displaying oil rate and cumulative oil production
of the field for the various repressurization outcomes, with a chemical stimulation
treatment performed in the parent well resulting in 66% NWB damage reduction.

For the case of extreme asymmetric fracture growth (46% overlap in SRV), the 4-year simulated
cumulative production was 892 MBOE (17:1). The base case (27% overlap in SRV) resulted in 4-year
cumulative production of 992 MBOE. The scenarios with mild overlap (7% overlap in SRV) and symmetric
fracture growth in the child well (no overlap in SRV) resulted in 1,034 and 1,048 MBOE respectively. A
17% increase in cumulative production was observed from the most extreme case to the best case scenario.

All Cases
Results indicate that substantial benefit can be realized through both PWP and fluid stimulation treatments.
Fig. 9 shows a summary of all cases with their cumulative 4-year production (MBOE) and percentage
improvements from the base case (27% overlap in SRV, no NWB damage reduction).

Figure 9—The 4-year cumulative MBOE and percentage improvement from the base case.
SPE-185782-MS 11

Simulation results showed that mitigation of asymmetric fracture growth can result in an increase in 4-
year cumulative recovery of up to 21%. Chemical stimulation treatments addressing only NWB/skin damage
can result in an increase in 4-year cumulative recovery of up to 16%. Combining both resulted in an increase
in cumulative recovery of up to 36%. Using the 27% overlap in SRV and no damage remediation as the
base metric, improvements in cumulative production of up to 20% were observed with the combination of
a PWP and fluid stimulation treatment.

Economic Analysis
From an economic standpoint, significant benefits can be observed from performing a PWP and chemical
stimulation treatment. The economic analysis was performed for the 27, 7, and 0% overlap in SRV cases
because it was assumed that a PWP or fluid stimulation treatment would not increase the severity of
production interference or damage. The extreme overlap case was not used for the economic analysis.
Assumptions were made about the costs of the various treatments. For the case of a base PWP treatment
with no stimulation fluids (i.e., water only), a cost of USD 150,000 was assumed. This was based on average
fluid volumes for PWP treatments and other associated expenses.
Assumptions were also made in associating 33 and 66% damage removal with additional capital
expenditures of USD 75,000 and USD 150,000, respectively, attributed to chemical stimulation and
fluid pumping operations, which could consist of acids, chelants, permeability enhancers, surfactants,
diverters, and other stimulation fluids. Because little is currently known about proppantless stimulation for
damage removal in multistage fractured horizontal wells (MFHW) in unconventional plays, the volume of
stimulation fluid necessary to effectively reduce NWB damage by 33 or 66% could differ significantly from
the assumed volume. Acharya et al. (2012) outline potential causes for concern for fracture acidizing in
the Middle East resulting from high bottomhole temperatures, sludging in source rocks, and high closure
stresses reducing induced fracture conductivity after stimulation. These concerns, however, are primarily
related to initial stimulation treatments and not damage remediation or restimulation.
NPV was evaluated for the various scenarios along with the assumed costs of the different treatments (Fig.
10). In addition, the ROR was also evaluated (Fig. 10) and showed favorable results in terms of economic
value.

Figure 10—NPV, ROR, and assumed costs of various scenarios and treatments.

It is important to consider that the NPVs shown were based on the simulation results. The estimated
ultimate recovery for the parent well within the reservoir model was approximately 550 MSTB and 615
MBOE) (17:1). This is high compared to an average Eagle Ford well in the Karnes Trough area, which is
approximately 350 to 400 MBOE (IHS 2016). While the evaluation might be optimistic, significant value
can be created, considering the relatively low cost of the treatment compared to the revenue generated from
incremental recovery.
12 SPE-185782-MS

Conclusions
During this study, two primary issues in unconventional asset recovery were evaluated: production
interference caused by asymmetric fracture growth of a development well and NWB damage in MFHWs.
Several conclusions were observed:

• Significant increases in recovery were observed when mitigating the overlap of SRV between
the parent and child wells. This recovery increase translated to substantial economic value. PWP
treatments have been shown to mitigate the fracture interference from child well completions
(Courtier et al 2016; Miller et al. 2016). When considering development from a multiwell drilling
location, performing PWP treatments can potentially reduce the number of wells necessary for
optimal hydrocarbon recovery of the given area and significantly increase NPV on a per well and
per asset basis.
• Significant increases in recovery were observed when remediating the NWB damage to some
extent from the parent wells. This recovery increase in the parent well translated to substantial
economic value that should not be ignored. Often, PWP treatments are budgeted such that chemical
stimulation fluids are not part of the schedule. Results indicated that appreciably increased benefits
can be realized by incorporating a fluid stimulation treatment along with PWP treatments.
• The break-even cost of a potential PWP/fluid stimulation treatment could be remarkably high if
simulation results are indicative of actual reservoir behaviors and responses to these treatments.
The value from the potential production uplift is significantly higher than the assumed cost of these
treatments. Economic benefits can be realized even through large-scale repressuring, chemical
stimulation, or even refracturing treatments in parent wells.
• An evaluation of many other parameters is necessary to determine the optimal PWP treatment.
Parameters such as parallel lateral spacing, reservoir properties (i.e., permeability and pressure),
damage factors, depletion of the parent well and time of production, in-situ stress changes caused
by parent well depletion, initial completion, and multiple other factors should be considered in
PWP treatment designs.

References
Acharya, M.N., Kabir, M.M.R., Al-Ajmi, S.A.H. et al. 2012. Integrated Approach to Unconventional Reservoir
Characterization: Key for Understanding Hydrocarbon Production Challenges in Kerogen and Tight Fractured Deep
Carbonate Complex in Kuwait. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, USA, 8–10 October. SPE-158650-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/158650-MS.
Courtier, J., Gray, D., Smith, M. et al. 2016. Legacy Well Protection Refrac Mitigates Offset Well Completion
Communications in Joint Industry Project. Presented at the SPE Liquids-Rich Basins Conference - North America,
Midland, Texas, USA, 21–22 September. SPE-181767-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/181767-MS.
Dahl, J., Dhuldhoya, K., Vaidya, R. et al. 2016. An Evaluation of Completion Effectiveness in Hydraulically Fractured
Wells and the Assessment of Refracturing Scenarios. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 9–11 February. SPE 179136. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/179136-MS.
Devon Energy. 2016. Q3 2016 Operations Report. http://s2.q4cdn.com/462548525/files/doc_financials/quarterly/2016/
Q3/Q3-2016-DVN-Operations-Report.pdf.
Diakhate, M., Gazawi, A., Barree, R.D. et al. 2015. Refracturing on Horizontal Wells in the Eagle Ford Shale in
South Texas - One Operator's Perspective. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The
Woodlands, Texas, 3–5 February. SPE 173333. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/173333-MS.
IHS. 2016. Eagle Ford 2.0- Ready for Relaunch? Internal Report, IHS Markit, London, England.
Martinez, R., Rosinski, J., and Dreher, D.T. 2012. Horizontal Pressure Sink Mitigation Completion Design: A Case Study
in the Haynesville Shale. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. San Antonio, Texas,
USA, 8–10 October. SPE-159089-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/159089-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. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/180200-MS.
SPE-185782-MS 13

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, 9–11 February. SPE 179177. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/179177-MS.
Walser, D. and Siddiqui, S. 2016. Quantifying and Mitigating the Impact of Asymmetric Induced Hydraulic Fracturing
from Horizontal Development Wellbores. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dubai,
UAE, 26–28 September. SPE- 181656-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/181656-MS.