CORPORATION

GeorgeKing
George E. King is a Registered Professional Engineer with over 38 years of experience. He started his career with Amoco in 1971. His technical background includes energized fracturing, acidizing, complex formation stimulation in many extreme environments. George has written over 60 technical papers, a book on completions and workovers, was a 1985 SPE distinguished lecturer and adjunct professor at the University of Tulsa among hi many h his honors throughout hi career. h h his George is currently a consultant with Apache in the area of stimulation and workovers.

2009 EPT Plan Presentation.ppt 02/16/2009 1

ShaleGasFracturing CombiningTracersand Microseismic toOptimizeFractureNetworks

GeorgeE.King CompletionsConsultant
Based on SPE Paper 119,896 and other well data

Areyourfracturesoptimized?
Can IP be tied to EUR? Only if frac network stays open! Decline of 25% in 20 days in well w/ low rate frac (controlled frac h) - did not generate much frac network ? Offset well declined 50% in same time w/ high rate frac & did open the ell / frac, network , but didnt prop it had higher IP, but suffered faster decline and high water production! Later wells were mid to high frac rates, but used sand slugs slower rate rates slugs, ramp for breakdown and faster sand ramp. Had flatter declines w/ low water. A one year d li of decline f 80%! WHY? The feeder fractures were not propped propped.

Early High Rate Frac (70 bpm), 500 bwpd Produced Water

High rate frac w/ h control

Low Rate Frac (35 bpm), 30 bwpd Produced Water

SomeObservationsFrom200+BarnettFracStages
Tensile fracs & open natural fracs are easiest to extend. Can go out of zone in <1 minute when frac rate is ramped up too quickly. High frac rates needed to increase complexity, but direct frac growth g p y, g first! Understand perf breakdown w/ press analysis, tracer sand & microseismic Where frac barriers exist, use large pads, high rates and low sand volume. If no barriers => slower fluid ramp, faster sand ramp, build barriers.
- Sand ramp must be tailored to the formation formation. - Mixtures of sand 100 mesh + 40/70 or 20/40 used to plug runaways. - Rate of press increase of 1 to 8 psi/min is good, faster press increase may signal impending screenout . Press drop may signal out-of-zone frac growth.

WellPerformancevs.FlowRegime f forFWBBarnettWells
An optimum frac should return high IP and sustain it to maximize NPV and EUR. The performance of most fracs in the Barnett are good, good but optimization is still needed. Does the plot indicate a frac performance problem that could show a disconnect in IP and EUR?
6,000
Stress Anisotropy py Shear Fractures Present Worth

5,000 5 000 4,000 3,000 2,000 2 000 1,000 0 0.0

Natural Fracture Drainage Only?

Well IP Rate (mcf/ R /d)

Propped Fracture Drainage ONLY 2.0 4.0 6.0 Well EUR (BCF) Stress Anisotropy py
Shear Fractures Present Worth

Plot by Jim Shuss

FracNetworkingwith FractureHeightControl
OK what is happening?
- Natural fractures are being opened, but not effectively propped. - N t Natural fracs closing as reservoir pressure declines and lf l i i d li d water is recovered. - When and why does frac closure happen? - Can frac closure be controlled? - What is involved?
Formation stresses, pressures, saturations and shale fabric dominates.

Aflowbackpatternfromonewell

Gas Lift

Days of Flow

MoreTypical Asthewaterdrops,sodoesthegas

DaysofFlow

Courtesy Rimrock Energy

Whatmakesadifferenceinthewells?
Classic shale gas candidate criteria Where are the flow paths located? What factors affect well placement and design? The fracture treatments themselves? The way we operate the wells?

RoughComparisonsofGasShales
Pay
Basin Location Depth (ft) H, thick: gross/net Modulus, psi BHT F Press Grad, psi/ft Maturity, Ro, % TOC, wt % Total Porosity % Sw Gas Cnt, scf/ton Adsorb Gas, % Water BWPD Well spacing GIP BCF/Section Basin Res. (TCF) EUR (BCF/well) Recovery Fact %

Barnett
FW TX 6 to 9000+ 250: 50% 7 to 9MM 180-210 0.4 to 0.5 1.4+ gas 1 to 5 1-8 0.1 -0.25 100-500 20 10 -100+ 80-160 30 to 40 25 to 250 2 to 5 8-15+

Marcellus

Fayetteville Arkoma AR 1500 to 6000 50-550: 50% 3MM 120 to 160 0.35 to 0.4 1.9 to 5 5 to 15 1 to 5 0.1 to 0.2

Woodford Arkoma OK 6 to 12,000 200 to 350 3 to 5MM

Conasauga BWB Ala, GA 4 to 8,000 3000:? <2MM 180

Devonian
App KY, NY, PA, WV 2 to 8000+ 30 to 300: 40% 3 to 7MM 100 to 140 0.2 to 0.4 0.9 to 2 3 to 20 2 to 5

Antrim
Michigan MI, IN, OH 0.6 to 2K+ 160: 40 60

N Albany Illinois IN, KY 0.5 to 2K+ 180: 40 to 60

Lewis
San Juan CO, NM 3 to 6000 3000:?

Appalachia PA, WVA 4 -10,000 50 to 300 4 to 7MM 150-200F 0.3 to 0.55 1.4 to 2+ 5 to 12 1 to 7 0.1 - 0.25+ 80 to 250+ 40 10 -100+ 80 to 160 30 to 50 275+ 2 to 4+ 10 to 15+

80 0.35 0.4 to 1.6 3 to 20 2 to 10 0.1 to 0.3 40 to 100 70 20 to 100 40 to 160 8-16 12 to 20

80 0.43 0.6 to 1.6 3 to 20 5 to 15 0.1 to 0.3 40 to 80 40 to 60 5 500 80 7 to 10 2 To 80

130-170 0.25 1 to 1.3 0.5 to 2.5 0.5 to 5 0.1 to 0.8 15-45 15 to 40 0 80 to 320 90 100 0.3 to 0.5

0.43 - 0.46 1.1 to 3 10 to 20 1 to 5+ 0.1 to 0.25 150-225

0.4 1.6 15 to 25%

<0.1 250+ UNK 0 80+ 110 10 to 50 ?

0.1 to 0.25 60 to 100 50 0 40 to 160 5 to 10 225

30 0 40 to 80 55-65 10 to 15 0.6 to 0.9 10 to 15

30

UNK

5 to 10%

10 to 20

20 to 60

10 to 20

5 to 15

data averaged from various sources

Gasflowpath fromdesorptiontoflow Gas flow path from desorption to flow

1. 1 In many gas shales, gas desorption is of smaller shales value than pore gas NPV dominates. 2. Movement of gas through the shale matrix also of lesser importance its just too slow! 3. Recovering the stored gas in accessible natural g g fractures is the major current value.
Graphics source: Ron McDonald, Schlumberger

NaturalFractures PrimaryandSecondary

CORPORATION

Shale outcrop in stream bed bed. Note the primary (blue) and secondary (yellow) natural fractures. A third natural frac set can be seen at the bottom of the i t th picture.
2009 EPT Plan Presentation.ppt 02/16/2009 12

Gary Lash SUNY, AAPG

Whatarewetryingtodo?
1. Possibilities in each part of the formation barriers, faults, local variances. Take advantage. 2. 2 Control the height of the frac if needed. needed 3. Increase frac path width (complex frac) 4. Maximize IP and EUR, minimize water production. 5. Understand the treating pressure signature. 6. Understand how to use the treatment variables:
Where do you place the perfs? Acid, ball sealers, hydraulic diversion P d slurry volumes and ramp-up speed Pad, l l d d Sand & liquid volumes what is needed and usable? Rate both stable rate and corrective rate changes When and when not to push for isolation

Settingupfracstagesandperfs
How to divide the wellbore?
- If natural fractures are regular, a regular spacing is OK. - If not, find where the nat. fracs are.

Methods of finding natural fracs (assuming that is good) g ( g g )

- ROP and gas-shows from logs at os of et a e to et a e, presence of and C4 - Ratios o methane-to-ethane, p ese ce o C3 a d C gas - 3D seismic interpretation yes, it may indicate nat. fracs. - Microseismic patterns from fracs - Tracers both tagged sand and water markers - Rock stress effects

Overlay all your data and look for patterns.

SomeWellDesignFactors
Wellbore orientation relative to frac direction(s)?

Does it make a diff D k difference? ? Do you really want the wellbore at 90 degrees to the frac? Primary Frac Direction Wellbore

Secondary Natural Fracs

Microseismic capturedfromsequentialfracturedwells.

CORPORATION

Note wellbore at a slight g angle to primary fracture direction keeps secondary frac f f from following wellbore.

Source Ri S Rimrock k Energy SPE 119896

2009 EPT Plan Presentation.ppt 02/16/2009 16

WellDesign Vertical,Slantor Horizontal

Horizontal offers maximum contact but slant wells may require less technology and time will support time, several fracs and can fit on smaller leases.

CORPORATION

Fractures are vertical for the most part, but may follow the wellbore for a short distance in deviated wells. Fracture orientation is affected by y tectonic stresses in the rock.

2009 EPT Plan Presentation.ppt 02/16/2009 18

DHVI?

Tracer tagged sands are used periodically to analyze proppant breakdown points and near well communications. Tracer tagged pad & frac waters determine: which intervals are broken down in each of the perf clusters which intervals are flowing back first;

which continue to flow with time; whichcontinuetoflowwithtime; whichstayopencomparedtoprod log. Refrac Refrac Candidate?
1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 16 65 41 15 69 90 980 1250 0 1480 0 1720 1935 2115 2295 2470 2620 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6 g 3145 3490 3755 not given Stage 7 not given Stage 8

LevelofUse? Untilyouunderstand.

What does micro-seismic really tell you?

General location of sounds in/near the pay that are above a certain energy (the gate level). b t i (th t l l) High and low energy events and high and low confidence events. A decent view of fracture extension, fracture direction, fracture isolation, upper and lower frac penetration, and f fracture f flow path development. In some cases, it can tell you the effect of near-field and far-field stresses, bedding planes and faults. far field stresses faults And many sounds totally unconnected with a frac.

WhatisavailablefromMicroseismic?
Complexity, Frac Height, Direction, Length, Faults Correlation to Treating Events (pressure, rate, proppant loading)

MoreComplexity LimitedDownwardGrowth

CORPORATION

2009 EPT Plan Presentation.ppt 02/16/2009 22

Courtesy Rimrock Energy

CORPORATION

Thefrachadstayedinzoneuntilthis point first25%ofeventsandthechart recordsaveryslow,steadypressurerise. Thenpressurestartstodecreaseassand concentrationisincreased..

2009 EPT Plan Presentation.ppt 02/16/2009 23

CORPORATION

FracturegoesintotheEllenberger.This correspondswithadropinrateanda rapidjumpbacktofullrate.

2009 EPT Plan Presentation.ppt 02/16/2009 24

CORPORATION

Pressurestartstoclimbandfracture goesupandspreads

2009 EPT Plan Presentation.ppt 02/16/2009 25

Microseismic verticalaccuracy
Is MS accurate enough to depend on it? It can be.
The comparison wells are mile apart.

Left and Right: a frac monitored from the vertical section of an offset producing well. 20% of events below pay. Well produced 500 bwpd of 100,000 ppm water.

Left and Right: a frac monitored from a parallel unfractured wellbore. 2% of events below pay. Well W ll produced 30 bwpd d d b d of 35,000 ppm water.

ProductionLogs UnderstandDeviatedFlowFirst!
6038 5996 5924 5912 5870 5828 6400 6358 6316 6274 6232 6190 6762 6 0 6720 6636 6678 6594 6552 7124 7082 7040 6998 6956 6914 7486 7444 7402 7360 7318 7276 7848 7806 7764 7722 7680 7638

CORPORATION

Stage6

Stage5

Stage4

Stage3

Stage2

Stage1

Production log&micro 10%Gas log & micro 10% G seismic hardtosee connection w/otreating / pressure

5%Gas 5% G

10%Gas 10% G

10%Gas 10% G 10% Gas

75%W

75%Gas

25%W

10%Gas

Stage5

2009 EPT Plan Presentation.ppt 02/16/2009 27

Courtesy Rimrock Energy

Operations
How fast do you recover the water? How hard do you pull the pressure down on the well? When do you use lift? What type? When do you refrac?

Conclusions
Spend the money early to understand the reservoir. Place the wells to maximize the access to flow paths within the reservoir Monitor fracs cheapest way to improve fracs quickly.
- Cost of the science is about 10% of well cost. - Frac optimization should take about 3 wells with science $ - Frac optimization has taken 10 wells w/o science $ - The difference in production between optimized and unoptimized fracs is about 30 to 50%.