SPE-184819-MS

Advanced Reservoir Characterization in Antelope Shale Using Chemical

Tracer Technology
Manish K. Lal and Amit K. Singh, Chevron; Joshua Ezernack and Jon Spencer, Tracerco
Copyright 2017, 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, 24-26 January
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
Understanding zonal contribution is imperative in a well with comingled production from multiple
stimulated zones. This has even more importance in shale plays where a primary appraisal objective is to
identify the prolific zones with a vertical well to decide which layers of the formation will be targeted for
future development. The use of measured inflow over time of each targeted zone provides an excellent
methodology to establish zonal contribution and wellbore evaluation.
The Monterey Formation in the southern San Joaquin valley of California produces from three silica
phases. While the industry has been pretty successful in producing from the shallow Diatomite rock via
cyclic steam operations, the deeper silica-based resources available in the Antelope Shale have yet to be
commercially established. Extracting hydrocarbons locked in these silica phases requires unconventional
technologies to access the high porosity / low permeability network. Unconventional completions require
greater front-end cost and carry an increased risk to return on investment. To minimize the risk, each pay
zone needs to be effectively described using both theoretical and empirical data.
In this paper, we present and discuss a case study where chemical-based tracer technology was used to
develop an accurate identification of the distinct pay zones within the different silica phases of the Antelope
Shale. Unique oil-phase chemical tracers were applied during the permitted hydraulic fracturing on four
vertical wellbores that gave an insight into the zonal production contribution and helped narrow potential
zones for future development. In comparison to tool based zonal contribution measurement methods, which
provide a snapshot in time measurement, the chemical tracers provided the capability to monitor and
measure inflow over a longer period indicating that zonal contribution varied with time. Some formation
layers produced immediately and then declined, while others took longer to cleanup and start contributing
to total production. These results helped narrow the uncertainty around the potential target zones.

Introduction
The Antelope Shale reservoir within the Monterey Formation in San Joaquin valley in California is
of Miocene age (Figure 1) and produces from three silica phases: Opal A (Diatomite), Opal CT, and
Quartz (Figure 2). While the Opal A has heavy oil and has been produced successfully via cyclic steam
operations, the Opal CT and Quartz have relatively light oil and the resources have largely been locked

SPE-184819-MS

since their discovery in the 1960s. With the US shale oil boom in the past decade and advancing stimulation
technologies, there has been a renewed interest in the lower Opal CT and Quartz phases to try to achieve
commercial production.

Figure 1 Monterey Formation Stratigraphy

Figure 2 Silica Phases of Antelope Shale

The Antelope Shale is a silica rich diatom deposition that is naturally fractured, normally pressured,
has migrated oil, decent porosity but low matrix permeability. Numerous pieces of literature have been
published that characterize the Monterey shales and their properties.
In general, unlike most conventional shale plays, the Monterey shales are much thicker (2000 ft. or more),
are not as widespread geographically (less than 2000 sq. miles), are much younger (6-16 million years
old), and have migrated oil. This kind of siliceous shale hydrocarbon reservoir is not very common and
has a complex geology. Drilling is more expensive due to the greater depths which have added to a much

SPE-184819-MS

slower industry adaptation and advancement. A quick overview of the Monterey Formation history (Figure
3) indicates that the recent technological advancements have largely not been implemented in this rock.

Figure 3 Monterey Formation History

Understanding the zonal contribution in a vertical commingled well is a key element for proper wellbore
and reservoir management. This is even more important in thick reservoirs with multiple sub-zones where a
decision on vertical vs. horizontal development needs to be evaluated. Knowing the production contribution
by zone enables engineers to focus on the higher producing zones and assists in picking the target zones
for future development.

Methods to Understand Zonal Contribution

While logging during drilling and post-drilling is used to characterize the wellbore, formation, and in-situ
fluids prior to well completion, there are additional methods available to provide information during most
production operations. The following are the various methods / tools available to the industry that provide
quantitative zonal production measurement and how they can often be used together to provide crucial
information for understanding the reservoir, stimulation effectiveness, and planning future development
strategies:
Fiber Optics
Fiber optics measures and models the Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) / Distributed Temperature
Sensing (DTS) data for allocating production to different zones. There are inherent uncertainties in the
analysis as it requires Water Oil Ratio (WOR) for calculations. This method is relatively expensive with only
qualitative results for a three phase system. Both cost and complexity need to be evaluated when choosing
this method.
Geochemical Analysis
Geochemical analysis for understanding zonal contribution precisely refers to oil fingerprinting wherein
downhole oil samples are collected and analyzed. Oil from each layer / zone has a unique gas
chromatographic (GC) fingerprint. A comparison and correlation of these fingerprints can give an idea of
the relative contribution of a particular interval in a commingled well. A baseline analysis of the in-situ
oil is required, but thereafter all samples analyzed can be compared to the baseline analysis to see if the
flow contribution from any particular zone is changing or is consistent. The information obtained from any
particular analysis is a snapshot in time.

SPE-184819-MS

Sliding Sleeve
A sliding sleeve assembly consists of individual sleeves assembled and run into the wellbore to be placed
across the pay zone. These sleeves can be mechanically operated to open and close an individual zone.
Multiple sleeves can be installed at different depths for selective isolation of different producing zones.
The producing zones are isolated by packers and the sleeves are opened or closed by slick line allowing
flexibility of producing one or multiple zones at a time. The number of isolated zones may be limited due to
physical well constraints (most likely up to 5 sleeves). Wellhead design needs to have penetrations for the
surface control lines to the sleeves. The elastomer seals in the sliding sleeves may deteriorate over time and
special elastomers may be needed for some well fluids. In the case of artificial lift, the pump needs to be
placed above the sleeve. Any time the sleeve is to be operated, the pump needs to be pulled out. The pump
seat nipple should have a large enough Inner Diameter (ID) to allow the shifting tool to pass through.
Intelligent Well Completion (IWC)
An IWC assembly in a well refers to one or more surface controlled sub-surface flow control valves with
sensors that could monitor pressure and temperature and in some cases, flow rates. An IWC assembly
provides the operator with a means to remotely monitor and control downhole production or injection. It
offers real time reservoir surveillance, quick and cheap zonal control or isolation without rig, and prevent
cross-flow in injectors when the well is shut-in. The challenges with IWC are cost, complexity of installation
and operation, and maintenance to reduce the risk of Inflow Control Valve (ICV) failure. ICV failure may
will lead to lost production (despite that ICV are designed to fail in open position).
Produce One Zone at a Time
The method of producing one stage / zone at a time, by far, should be the most effective method for
understanding zonal contribution. It can be achieved by dual completions (for 2 zones) or by producing
one zone at a time (for 2 or more zones). However, this will likely incur more cost with a dual completion
design or lost production due to one zone at a time production, both of which may not be optimal. The dual
completion is a challenge in an unconventional stimulated reservoir. Producing single zone at a time can be
achieved either by selective completion or utilizing sliding sleeve, but it leads to lost production and well
intervention and associated cost in the latter case.
Production Logging Tool (PLT)
A basic production logging incorporating spinner / temperature / fluid density / gamma ray tools is used
in the industry to measure the flow velocity, density and temperature of the fluid in the wellbore. The
flow at each individual perforation cluster can be measured and identified as to fluid type and volume.
The production logging run should be carefully planned with a full wellbore sketch and the tool run under
stable well operations. The well must be under self-flow conditions and the logging results may be impacted
when wellhead flow volumes and pressures vary during the time of the logging operation. The tool may
restrict the flow area and alter the flow regime. PLT runs should be scheduled so as to provide for multiple
runs. Multiple runs at different speeds are essential for the proper in-situ calibration of the spinner and
computation of the absolute flow. Running the tool usually requires rig or coil tubing, all at additional costs
to the operator. Due to the requirement for self-flow, the tool is not usable with rod or sub-surface pumped
wells. The information obtained from any particular tool run is a snapshot in time.
Tracers
Chemical based tracers are available in gas, oil and water phase solutions. The tracers are applied to the
fracture fluid during the hydraulic fracturing of each stage which carries them into the fracture matrix
where they respectively mix with the in-situ production phase. The tracers return with the traced production
phase when the well is put on production. Production samples are collected at surface and analyzed for the

SPE-184819-MS

presence and concentration of each tracer's unique signature. Comparison of the amounts of each tracer
in the sample is the underlying principle of the quantification methodology, as it is a direct indication of
production contribution from each stage in the wellbore. The current numbers of tested and proven unique
chemicals exceeds forty, allowing multiple measurements along the wellbore for detailed definition of stage /
zonal inflow. Using different chemical tracers targeting the oil, water, and gas phases provides information
on the contribution of each phase.
Chemical tracer applications require trained personnel onsite to apply the tracers, at additional cost to the
operator, to ensure correct application and prevent errors. Sample collection can usually be accomplished
by existing flow back personnel as no tracer specific sampling procedures are required. However, care must
be taken to prevent sample contamination that may impact the tracer results.
Each sample provides a "production log" indicating the stage production during the sample time
period, with higher tracer concentration indicative of increased zonal contribution and lower concentration
representing reduced contribution. A comparison of production split per stage for sequential samples
provides a view of changing production over time, and can be used to evaluate the stage / zonal flow
dynamics, stimulation effectiveness (when combined with stimulation data), rock production capability
(when combined with petrophysical data), and assist in decisions on zonal development going forward.

Case Study
Oil-phase chemical tracer technology was utilized during permitted hydraulic fracturing treatments in the
Antelope Shale reservoir in the McKittrick field to understand zonal contribution from the deeper silica
phases: Opal CT, and Quartz.
The chemical tracer technology was preferred over the other methods for primarily 3 reasons:

Provision of zonal contribution information over a significantly longer period of time than wireline
tools.
Full bore flow capability, without tool intrusion.
Relatively low cost.

In Well 1, sliding sleeves and PLT were utilized along with the chemical tracers. A comparison of these
tool's results are presented in this paper.

Application and Design

Four vertical wells in the McKittrick field were drilled into the siliceous shale intersecting similar target
zones within the Quartz and Opal CT phases. These wells were hydraulically fractured with multiple stages:
Well 1 (11 stages), Well 2 (12 stages), Well 3 (7 stages), and Well 4 (7 stages). A unique oil-phase chemical
in an organic solution was added as a distributed emulsion to the fracturing fluid of each stage in each of
the four wells to provide data to differentiate the production characteristics of each zone.
Table 1 identifies and color codes the five unique zones of the formation that were targeted for stimulation
across the Quartz and Opal CT phases, as well as where each intersected in the respective wellbore. Wells 1
& 2 were completed using the coiled tubing Pinpoint Hydrajet Frac system, which allowed fractures to be
isolated to specific sets of perfs, whereas Wells 3 & 4 utilized the Plug-and-Perf completion method which
had a longer interval length per stage that created larger overlap of the individual zones. To compensate
for the variation in stage lengths and overlap of zones, which made it difficult to compare production
contribution from each zone, the perforated footage intersecting each layer was used to establish a (footage)
ratio (per zone) to create a means of normalization (Figure 4a). The established zonal footage ratio was then
allocated proportionally to the measured stage volumes of those stages with overlapping zones under the
assumption that the tracer was evenly distributed across all perfs of the respective stage (Figure 4b).

SPE-184819-MS

Table 1 Targeted Fracture Stages in Antelope Shale

Figure 4aWell and Zonal Perf Lengths (ft)

Figure 4bNormalized Perf Lengths per Zone

SPE-184819-MS

Any possible variance in tracer application between stimulation stages was minimized by using a
controlled process to apply the tracers with tracer injection equipment connected to the suction side of the
high-pressure frac pumps. Tracer application consisted of applying equal volumes of tracer solution during
the same relative time frame of each hydraulic fracturing operation, thereby restricting solution application
variability and ensuring comparative tracer production under the assumption that all stages have the ability
to flowback in the same manner, with the dependent variables being the amount of oil producible from the
stage, stimulation effectiveness (planar or matrix), and rock parameters. The presence and concentration of
the tracers in the samples would then be indicative of actual oil production rates from each hydraulically
fractured matrix.

Sampling and Production

Produced fluid samples are required from the wellbore during initial and subsequent production. The
sampling program is determined by the amount of information desired versus the cost to sample, which
ultimately depends on the operator's objectives. Each tracer sample provides a snap-shot image of
the wellbore's production, detailing each stage's production at the respective sample time. An increased
sampling frequency would provide a greater resolution of each stage's flow response to pressure, fracture
type, and permeability variations in the wellbore. Typically, a greater number of samples are desired when
production is known to be fluctuating amongst individual stages in the wellbore, e.g., during initial flow
back or following any well operations that could affect the flow dynamics.
Sampling of the four wells was performed over a 6-month time period commencing from initial flow
back of each well. The wells had varying uptime during this period. To account for the varying producing
hours of each well, a value was established for equivalent days (Table 2) and used in the production
comparisons. Equivalent days only takes into account the amount of time each well was on production.
It is important to normalize and incorporate the producing time per well as it is assumed that a well that
has been producing for more hours will have increased total production as compared to a well that has not
been producing for as long.
Table 2Equivalent Days

Equivalent Days were calculated for the production comparisons using the equation:
Equivalent Days = (Cumulative Producing Hours) /1440

Tracer Production Methodology

The concentration of each unique tracer in the produced fluid sample was measured in the laboratory. For
comparative results, the quantity of each tracer in the oil sample was measured and correlated to the total
oil volume produced during the sampling interval. This relationship to production flow volume allows the

SPE-184819-MS

tracer responses to be compared on an equalized volumetric basis. In addition to confirmation of oil flow
from the stages, a comparison of the tracer concentration over time provides information on the production
from each stage. The level of tracer concentration in the samples is proportional to the stage oil production,
providing information on the amount of production from the stage.
Stage pressure is also a factor in production, either assisting in producing a large volume from that
stage, or inhibiting production due to a lower pressure factor. Analyzing the tracer response over time was
particularly useful in understanding how each stage produced oil over the sample time frame, i.e. does oil
production begin from one stage sooner or lasts longer than oil production from another stage (Figure 8).
For effective stage comparisons, the total cumulative tracer recovered per stage was determined from
all samples collected and this value was used to establish the total volume of oil produced from each stage
and zone. The cumulative response equation, (Equation 1) provides the cumulative tracer recovered up to
a specific elapsed time interval.

Where [TR] = total tracer produced over time

[Q] = cumulative oil production as a function of time
[C] = tracer measured in the sample
[t] = the elapsed time.
The produced oil flow rate will often be available as a discrete value representing each day. The measured
tracer (sampled) will be available only as an individual measurement established by the sampling program.

Reservoir Characterization and Tracer Results

The tracer results of the zonal contribution from the five targeted zones in each of the four wellbores are
presented in Figures 5a & 5b. Figure 5a shows the normalized cumulative oil production of each zone in
each wellbore. In Figure 5b, the sum value of all oil production from each zone is presented as a single
bar to indicate the comparative production differences between zonal production levels as determined by
the oil produced over time.

Figure 5aZonal Contribution Ratio (Oil) by Wellbore

SPE-184819-MS

Figure 5bZonal Contribution (Oil)

Measured oil volumes normalized to zonal contribution indicate that the Quartz (zone A) was not as
productive as the Opal CT zones. Although the combined zonal contribution bars (Figure 5b) suggest that
zones C & D in Opal CT were the most productive, the individual wellbore bars (Figure 5a) show that zone
C has more production variability across the field as compared to zone D. This could be due to variations
in rock properties in zone C across the field. Zone D may have consistent rock properties across the field
and gives higher confidence to target with horizontal wells.

Tracer vs. Sliding Sleeve Results

A production test of zonal contribution was performed with the sliding sleeves installed in Well 1. Production
was isolated to each zone by mechanically closing all but one sleeve. With the exception of zone A (which
had a bridge plug installed above it during the sleeve operations), each zone's production was monitored
for a 2-week period.
Tracer samples were collected as a method to confirm the sleeve status as open or closed. A positive
tracer presence would indicate an open sleeve, whereas low to no tracer presence would indicate a closed
sleeve. A confirmation of complete isolation is imperative when tools are used downhole to open or squeeze
stages from production, especially when using the data as a metric to understand which zones are to target
for future completions.
A comparison of tracer data with the well's oil production during each open sleeve is shown (Figure 6).
The black bars represent the normalized oil production from each zone when its corresponding sleeve was
in open position. The green bars represent the percentage of the sampled oil that is from the zone targeted
for isolation. Some samples indicated small amounts of leakage past the closed sleeve(s), but it is readily
apparent that the tracer presence or lack thereof, confirms the sliding sleeve operations to be successful.

10

SPE-184819-MS

Figure 6Well 1 Zonal Production: Sliding Sleeve vs. Tracer

A good match was observed between the actual oil production of zones C, D, E (Figure 6) and Well 1's
zonal tracer contribution (Figure 5a). This test proved the usefulness of tracers in the wellbore as a diagnostic
to verify wellbore equipment operations and also gives confidence in the zonal production quantification
using tracers.

Tracer vs. PLT Results

A comparison of the tracer data with the PLT run in Well 1 is shown (Figure 7).

Figure 7Tracer vs. PLT Flow Contribution in Well 1

The PLT and tracer results were in fairly good agreement for zones C, D, and E. However, since the PLT
went only just below the Opal CT and not all the way to the Quartz phase, the production from zone A could
be heavily influenced by that from zone B. As such, the contributions from zones A & B may be difficult
to distinguish. The PLT indicated zero production from zone B after taking a combined reading from the
three stages in zone A. This is an anomaly as compared to the tracer results which showed tracer production
from zone B in all samples collected. In fact, the tracer data recognized zone B as a significant contributor
in each of the four wells, while suggesting zone A to be an uneconomical target. Overall, both technologies
yielded similar zonal contributions based upon a combined flow from zones A and B and individual flows
from zones C, D, and E.

SPE-184819-MS

11

Flow Contribution over Time Using Tracer Data

One of the main advantages of tracer technology is the continuous data monitoring without shutting in the
well and it's relatively low cost. Figure 8 shows the zonal contribution variation of each zone over 150
equivalent days. This type of knowledge helps in understanding the effectiveness of the well stimulation
program and characterizing the true potential of the reservoir. A single snapshot in time will not capture the
true potential of a zone if it is changing.

Figure 8Flow Contribution over Time

Conclusions
Chemical tracer technology gave insight into the zonal production contribution and helped narrow potential
zones for future development. The correlation of high or low producing zones across the 4 wells gave a
spatial understanding of the prolific zones in this area.
The tracer results of zonal contribution were in agreement with zonal contribution results from one
PLT run in Well 1 and from the sliding sleeve manipulations also in Well 1. The results compared well
qualitatively, in the sense that a high producing zone from the tracer analysis was also a high producing zone
from PLT and sliding sleeve methods despite that the exact percentage contribution to flow was slightly
different.
Tracer results clearly indicated that production contribution of individual stage and zones varied over
time. The zonal inflow contribution monitored and measured over a longer period is critical as compared
to a snapshot measurement. These results were then compared to the geological and geophysical data to
develop and advance reservoir characterization of these formations.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank the management of Chevron Corporation and Johnson Matthey Tracerco for
giving permission to publish this paper.

12

SPE-184819-MS

References

Gardien G.J., Pope G.A., and Hill A.D, Hydraulic Fracture Diagnosis Using Chemical Tracers, The University of Texas
at Austin SPE 36675 - 1995
Kaufman R. L., Ahmed, A. S., and Elsinger, R. J., 1990, Gas Chromatography as a development and production tool for
fingerprinting oils from individual reservoirs: applications in the Gulf of Mexico: In: Proceedings of the 9th Annual
Research Conference of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists. (D. Schumaker and B. F. Perkins,
Ed.), New Orleans. 263-282.
Malik, M., Singh, A., & Lal, M. K. (2015, September 28). Stress Profiling with Microfracturing and Sonic Logs in
Antelope Shale. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/175002-MS
Miller C., Waters G., and Rylander E., Evaluation of Production Log Data From Horizontal Wells Drilled in Organic
Shales. SPE 144326 - 2011
Salman, A., Kurtoglu, B., & Kazemi, H. (2014, September 30). Analysis of Chemical Tracer Flowback in Unconventional
Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/171656-MS
Spencer J., Bucior D., Catlett R., and Lolon E., Evaluation of Horizontal Wells in the Eagle Ford Using Oil-Bases Chemical
Tracer Technology to Optimize Stimulation Design. SPE 163846 - 2013
Stegent N., Ferguson K., and Spencer J., Comparison of Frac Valves vs Plug and Perf Completion in the Oil Segment of
the Eagle Ford Shale: A Case Study. SPE 148642 - 2011
Stegent N., Wagner A., Stringer C., Tompkins R., and Smith N. Engineering Approach to Optimize Development Strategy
in the Oil Segment of the Eagle Ford Shale: A Case Study. SPE 158846 - 2012