SPE-184863-MS

Enhancement of Well Production in the SCOOP Woodford Shale through the

Application of Microproppant

James Calvin, Bill Grieser, and Travis Bachman, Halliburton

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
This paper presents the incorporation of microproppant (MP) in stimulation treatment designs in the liquids-
rich South Central Oklahoma Oil Province (SCOOP) Woodford and its effects on well production. When
MP is used, it can enter secondary fractures that are too narrow and restricted for even conventional small
proppant, such as 100-mesh sand, to enter and prop them open during production. Descriptions of the MP,
area formation, numerical modeling, production results, and offset comparisons are presented.
In unconventional formations, communication between the secondary fracture network, which includes
natural fractures and secondary fractures propagated during stimulation, and the wellbore is crucial for
improved well production. Perhaps the most difficult objective to accomplish when treating unconventional
formations is not just enhancing the number of secondary fractures opened, but increasing the number of
those secondary fractures that remain open over a long period of time. During stimulation treatments, MP
is pumped during the initial pad stages so it can enter the secondary fractures that are propagated, and keep
them open when pressure on the formation is relieved during production.
An analysis of treatments conducted within the Woodford play, and associated numerical modeling,
demonstrated the presence of pressure dependent leakoff (PDL), low stress anisotropy, and high net
pressures as indications of reservoir complexity. Because of the predicted fracture complexity, a smaller
proppant is necessary to prop the narrower secondary fractures. As a result, a series of field trials were
conducted to examine the effectiveness of MP for enhancing well production. Comparisons are made
between wells where MP was used and offset well production to demonstrate such impact. A description of
treatment designs used is also presented for comparison. The wells where MP was pumped during the initial
pad stages of stimulation treatments demonstrated significant production uplift compared to offset wells.
Additionally, MP demonstrated a secondary benefit, which indirectly manifests in net treating pressure.
PDL is believed to be a major contributor to excessively high treating pressures and screenouts in the area.
Because the particle size of the MP enables better access to the narrower secondary fracture network, it
also reduces entry friction associated with PDL. Such reduction has led to lower treating pressures, which
subsequently has improved placement efficiency of stimulation treatments.
2 SPE-184863-MS

Introduction
Development of unconventional reservoirs, including shales for oil and gas, has grown substantially over
the past decade with unconventional oil and gas making up the majority of production across the continental
United States. These types of reservoirs are characterized by low permeability (less than 1 md) and, as
such, the application of hydraulic fracturing is oftentimes necessary for wells in these formations to produce
at economic rates. Generally, well production in unconventional formations correlates with stimulated
reservoir volume (SRV), which means well production is highly dependent how much of a given reservoir is
contacted by a stimulation treatment. So, stimulation treatments typically consist of large water and proppant
volumes.
These types of formations can exhibit varying degrees of complexity. The development of secondary
fracture complexity can be a result of the dilation of in situ natural fractures or from the generation of
microfractures during stimulation. Warpinski et al (1998) describes how fracture complexity does not always
occur orthogonal against the maximum horizontal stress, but can also form from the bifurcation of dominant
main fractures. These bifurcating fractures could also be described as "frac hair." Improving production in
these types of reservoirs can depend highly on how much fracture complexity is generated during stimulation
and how much of those secondary fractures remain open long term during production. To promote the
generation of fracture complexity during stimulation, low viscosity fluids, such as slickwater and linear gel
are used as treatment fluids (Cipolla et al. 2009). The low viscosity allows for fluid penetration into the non-
dominant fractures, whereas high viscosity would confine the treatment fluid to dominant planar fractures.
Several issues are encountered when attempting to prop open non-dominant secondary fractures. Lower
viscosity fluids have a reduced particle carrying capacity. As a result, proppant particulates have a higher
tendency to settle out within the hydraulic fractures during stimulation (Warpinski et al. 2008; Warpinski
et al. 2009; Woodworth and Miskimins 2007). It is reasonable to assume that this settling tendency limits
the stimulated reservoir that is effectively propped. Manoorkar et al. (2016) conducted an experimental
study of particulate transport in T-bifurcating fractures that demonstrated the difficulty for particulates to
migrate from their primary flow path (i.e., a primary hydraulic fracture) to a secondary path (i.e., secondary
fractures). Typical proppant sizes used during stimulation treatments of unconventional formations include
40/170-mesh (100-mesh), 40/70-mesh, and larger. It is possible that the fracture widths of generated
secondary fractures might be too small and restrictive relative to the fracture widths of dominant primary
fractures and that proppants as small as 100-mesh might still be too large to enter them and prop them
open during production. Without a propping agent, when pressure is relieved from the reservoir during
production, the generated fracture complexity will return to a closed state.
Although fracture complexity is desired for production, it can have a negative impact with respect to
the placement of the stimulation treatment in the form of PDL. The presence of PDL during stimulation
can lead to excessively high treating pressures, increase instances of screenouts, and create a need for
excessively high water volumes for treatment placement. All of these issues can lead to inefficient
stimulation treatments. The idea of using fine mesh proppant to mitigate PDL is not a new concept. Instances
of using fine mesh proppants, such as 100-mesh, 50/140-mesh ceramic, and 35/140 angular bauxite, to
reduce PDL and screenouts are well documented (Northcutt et al. 1988; Cote et al. 2007; Wood et al. 2011).
This study presents the utilization of MP in stimulation treatments in the SCOOP Woodford Shale play.
Both the operational benefits and the impact on well production are examined.

Microproppant
MP can be defined as micron-sized particulates that are smaller than 100-mesh proppants. It is delivered to
the wellsite as a concentrated slurry and pumped during the initial pad stages of stimulation treatments as
a dilution to achieve a proppant concentration of approximately 0.1 lbm/gal. Several studies have already
been conducted examining the viability of MP as a propping agent for secondary fractures. Nguyen et al.
SPE-184863-MS 3

(2013), Dahl et al. (2015a), and Dahl et al. (2015b) discuss laboratory testing as well as numerical modeling
and field trial results. Tables 1 and 2 show the particle distribution, MP-1 and MP-2 having significantly
different distributions, and the results from split shale core permeability testing comparing several different
types of proppant including ceramic MP from Dahl et al. (2015). For reference purposes, the aqueous based
surface modification agent (ASMA) in Table 2 is a tackifying agent meant to coat both proppant and fracture
face to improve vertical proppant distribution. Both the field study and the numerical modeling from the
above references showed MP to have a significant impact on production. A field trial was conducted in the
Barnett Shale and the MP wells proved to have average uplifts ranging from approximately 20 to 40% for
gas and condensate production compared to immediate offsets.

Table 1PSD analysis of fine particulates (Dahl et al. 2015).

Fine Particulate d10 (m) d50 (m) d90 (m)

Material

325-mesh silica flour 2.64 17.1 43.4

Ceramic MP-1 9.43 29.7 110
Ceramic MP-2 2.02 15.4 119
100-mesh sand 111 177 263

Table 2Effect of ASMA and fine particulates on effective permeability on shales cores (Dahl et al. 2015)

With
Particulates Only With Both ASMA and Particulates

Fine Particulate Material Ki (md) Kf (md) Treatment Type Ki (md) Kf (md)

325-mesh silica flour NT NT One-stage 7.9 18.1

Ceramic MP-1 NT NT One-stage 3.2 31.3
Ceramic MP-2 NT NT One-stage 0.43 1.97
Ceramic MP-2 NT NT Two-stage 0.77 5.58
100-mesh sand 2 17 One-stage 8.9 1832
100-mesh sand 5 25 Two-stage 12 304
100-mesh sand NT NT Two-stage 14 1708

NT =not tested
Ki = Permeability of split shale core without proppant
Kf = Permeability of split shale core with proppant

The Woodford Shale

The Woodford is a Devonian age siliceous unconventional shale reservoir that spans most of Oklahoma.
As stated in Grieser (2011), there are four major Woodford basins in OklahomaAnadarko, Arkoma,
Ardmore, and the Chautauqua Platform. The reservoir is typically separated into three general intervals
the upper, middle, and lower. The upper Woodford is the most brittle, having the highest quartz content
and the lowest clay content. The clay content of the formation generally increases moving from the upper
interval to the lower interval. Depending on the basin, the true vertical depth (TVD) and formation thickness
of the Woodford can range from approximately 5,000 to 20,000 ft and from 150 to 350 ft. The producible
hydrocarbon can range from dry gas (Arkoma Basin) to retrograde condensate (Anadarko Basin). Perhaps
the most prolific Woodford basin is the liquids-rich Anadarko. Within the basin, there are two Woodford
areasthe Cana and the SCOOP (Fig. 1).
4 SPE-184863-MS

Figure 1Map of the Anadarko Basin with Cana and SCOOP areas of the Woodford.

Horizontal drilling and completion of the Woodford in the Anadarko began in the Cana area in 2007
and development began expanding into the SCOOP area around 2012. The Cana Woodford area falls in
the geographical areas of Blaine, Kingfisher, and Canadian counties as well as parts of Caddo and Dewey
Counties. The SCOOP area is in Grady, Stephens, and Garvin Counties, respectively. The areas are liquids-
rich, producing condensates with API gravities of approximately 45-60. Wellbore lateral lengths in both
areas can range from 5,000 to 10,000 ft on average, with some lateral lengths extending greater than 15,000
ft (Fig. 2). Stimulation treatments are characterized by large water and proppant volumes with job sizes only
continuing to increase as time progresses (Figs. 3 and 4). The formation depths for both areas can range
from approximately 10,000 to 18,000 ft, mostly increasing in depth moving northeast to southwest.

Figure 2Average perforated lateral lengths Cana and SCOOP area Woodford wells by month (April 2011 to February 2016).
SPE-184863-MS 5

Figure 3Average proppant mass pumped on Cana and SCOOP area Woodford wells by month (April 2011 to February 2016).

Figure 4Average water volumes pumped on Cana and SCOOP area Woodford wells by month (April 2011 to February 2016).

Operational Considerations
Near wellbore (NWB) screenouts and steep production declines are not uncommon in the Woodford
SCOOP area. Through the analysis of diagnostic fracture injectivity testing (DFIT), core, rock property
logs, microseismic monitoring, treating pressure observation and numerical modeling, it is apparent there
is some degree of fracture complexity. However, it is not complex in the sense that there is a significant
secondary strike direction. DFIT analysis consistently identifies the presence of PDL in the Woodford. A
typical G function graph from a DFIT in the area is shown in Fig 5. PDL is indicated by the "hump" in the G
function before closure. It is also not uncommon for DFIT analysis to identify transverse storage or a "belly"
in the G Function (Barree and Barree 2007). In this case, transverse storage is likely not at a right angle
to dominate strike, but can be interpreted as a more severe case of PDL. This secondary PDL network can
6 SPE-184863-MS

lead to wellbore-fracture connectivity issues resulting in NWB screenouts. Similarly, it can lead to steeper
than expected production declines if not effectively propped.

Figure 5Example observed PDL from a DFIT analysis G function plot.

Stress interference and tortuosity resulting from dilation of PDL elevates treating pressure. Most
operators in the play use 100 mesh to mitigate leakoff into the PDL network with varying results. Success
depends on the width of the PDL network, which is often too small to accept 100-mesh proppant. The shape
of the meandering PDL network also has an effect on proppant placement (Manoorkar et al. 2016). It should
be noted that the realistic situation downhole is likely much more complicated than can be modeled in the
lab or numerically simulated.
Although natural fractures have been observed in the Woodford SCOOP, they are not predominating.
Core and image logs show varying degrees of natural fractures with the count usually being relatively low.
PDL had been consistently observed with or without the presence of natural fractures. A moderate brittleness
factor, thin bedding layers and geographical heterogeneity result in varying degrees of PDL.
Net pressures in the Woodford SCOOP are often observed to be in excess of 1,500 psi. The fissure opening
pressure is typically much lower than the net pressure it takes to propagate a fracture. Therefore, some
degree of PDL is typically present. Because of relatively high Young's Modulus and stress interference from
competing fractures, much of the PDL network's width is too small to effectively prop with conventional
proppants. PDL is most pronounced early in the treatment while rate is being established and before proppant
or viscous fluid is pumped.

Numerical Modeling
Before the field trials, several phases of modeling were conducted to examine the extent of PDL and
its implications on fracture complexity in the area. An industry standard commercial modeling software
was used to analyze post fracturing data from a non-MP well. The model was calibrated using well
logs, DFIT, core, and observed treating pressure data. Pressure matching early time treatment data with
a conventional planar model proved to be difficult. Observed pressures were often higher than model
predictions, suggesting that PDL levels during full scale fracturing were much higher than indicated by
DFIT analysis (Fig. 6). However, the observed pressure and the model pressure output would begin to
match once treatment rate was achieved and proppant was on formation within the model simulation.
SPE-184863-MS 7

This indicated that PDL was very significant early in the pad and began to diminish as rate and proppant
established a dominate flow path away from the wellbore. The pressure-matched conventional model
was then compared to microseismic models. The conventional model predicted longer lengths than were
observed from microseismic data. One possible conclusion from this observation was that a significant
amount of treatment fluid was entering the PDL network instead of contributing to dominant fracture
development.

Figure 6Treatment plot of both observed treatment data and model output treatment data. PDL is indicated by the
difference in measured treating pressure (treating pressure) and the model simulated treating pressure (Well Pressure)

Additionally, a geomechanical complex fracture model was calibrated to the microseismic data, logs,
core and net pressure data used in the planar fracture modeling. Once a match was achieved, it was apparent
that the fracture network was low to moderately complex with no clear secondary strike direction and that
the fracture widths from the model output were possibly too narrow for placement of a proppant even as
small as 100 mesh (Fig. 7). Average fracture width outputs ranged from 0.09 to 0.2 in. This variance in
width could contribute to the uneven distribution of proppant throughout the network.

Figure 7Visualization of a complex fracture simulation with stress contours.

8 SPE-184863-MS

Field Trials and Results

Design and Execution
A series of field trials were conducted in the SCOOP area of the Woodford Shale in Grady County Oklahoma
to examine the production benefits of pumping MP in the pad stages of the stimulation treatments. The
treatment fluid consisted of a hybrid of slickwater and linear gel. Conventional proppant sizes were 100,
40/70, and 30/50-mesh. Design treatment rate for all wells was 80 bbl/min with a perforation scheme of
four clusters per stage at 5 spf. These trials were conducted on three wellsite pads having six, four, and two
wells. All the wells were targeting the same zone of the Woodford. Each pad site contained one well where
MP was used. There were four job design types present in the three field trials designed to test the effects
of proppant, water volume and MP on production (Table 3). The designated job design type for each well
can be found in Table 4.

Table 3Field trial treatment design types.

Proppant (lbm/ft) Water (bbl/ft)

Type I (baseline) 800 40

Type II (higher water) 800 45
Type III (higher proppant) 1100 45
Type IV (MP) 800 40-45

Table 4Normalized actual proppant mass and water volumes for each individual well. Wells are listed in sequential order.

Proppant (lbm/ft) Water (bbl/ft)

Pad A
Offset A-1, Type II, outside well 783 45
Offset A-2, Type I 782 38
Offset A-3, Type II 786 45
MP well 786 45
Offset A-4, Type II 801 46
Offset A-5, Type III, outside well 1067 50
Pad B
Offset B-1, Type I, outside well 794 40
MP well 794 41
Offset B-2, Type II 802 45
Offset B-3, Type III, outside well 1128 46
Pad C
Offset B-1, Type I 785 40
MP well 803 42

Production Results
Production was sampled at 279 days (Pad A), 110 days (Pad B), and 195 days (Pad C). Gas and condensate
production was normalized and comparisons were made between the production results of the MP wells
and their immediate offsets.
Normalization and Analysis of Production. Production in low permeability unconventional reservoirs
tends to correlate with stimulated reservoir volume (SRV). Several variables that can impact the SRV of
SPE-184863-MS 9

a well are the treatment size (proppant mass and water volumes) and lateral length (Fisher et al. 2002;
Mayerhofer et al. 2010). Thus, to account for the production impact that could result from changes in these
variables, production was normalized by lateral length, proppant mass, and water volume. However, there
are several issues with normalizing any production by the above variables and performing comparisons.
Production has been sampled previously from the surrounding area. Although it does appear that increasing
lateral length, proppant mass, and water volumes can have a positive impact on production, there does appear
to be diminishing returns with increases of the above variables. As a result, the normalized production will
favor the smaller size variables when those variables are used to normalize the production, which could
result in a skewed view of the production results. The actual relationship, when using real production data
is difficult to quantify; but, for normalization purposes, it is assumed to be a square root relationship. Fig.
8 is meant to convey this observed relationship where X is either lateral length, proppant mass, or water
volume, and P(t) is either the cumulative gas or condensate production at a specific point in the production
life of a well.

Figure 8Theoretical relationship between well production and lateral length, proppant mass, or water volume.

The lateral lengths of wells in each of the field trials were fairly similar to their offsets (6884173 ft
for Pad A, 7036 11 ft for Pad B, and 7833 312 for Pad C), so it is assumed that the well production
can be normalized sufficiently by the conventional lateral length. With respect to proppant mass, and water
volumes, the difference between wells is as high as 30% in water volume and 42% in proppant mass.
Because of this, normalizations were performed with both the conventional variables and the square root of
those variables. Another issue with comparing wells on multi-well pads is that production results can often
times favor wells whose laterals are on the outside of the pad. The hydraulic fractures on these wells are not
necessarily competing for reservoir with other wells whereas inside wells are competing. In other words,
the outside wells have more area to drain hydrocarbons from than the inside wells. An overview of the
normalized production results and comparisons can be viewed in Table 5, Table 6, and Fig. 9. Production in
the figures is in terms of BOE, but they account for the issues mentioned above. Moving forward, production
results will primarily be presented normalized by lateral length and/or the square root of proppant mass or
water volume.
10 SPE-184863-MS

Table 5Normalized production (condensate and gas in BOE, 6 Mcf:1bbl) comparisons

by lateral length, lateral length and proppant mass, and lateral length and water volume.

Production

Lateral Length Lateral Length Proppant Mass Lateral Length Water Volume

BOE/(1000 ft) MP BOE/(1000 MP BOE/(1000 ft1000 bbl) MP

Uplift ft1000 lbm) Uplift Uplift
% % %

Pad A (279 days of production)

MP well 42340 7.87 136.15
Offset ave. (Type I, Type II, Type III) 38942 8.7 6.81 15.5 127.22 7.0
Offset ave. (Type I, Type II) 37907 11.7 6.95 13.2 125.71 8.3
Inside offset ave. (Type I, Type II) 38281 10.6 7.05 11.5 129.43 5.2
Inside Offset Average w/o Type I 39287 7.8 7.31 7.6 126.84 7.3
Pad B (110 days of production)
MP well 23630 4.23 82.08
Offset ave. (Type I, Type II, Type III) 23287 1.5 3.72 13.5 77.02 6.6
Offset ave. (Type I, Type II) 21481 10.0 3.83 10.4 72.11 13.8
Inside offset 20618 14.6 3.66 15.5 64.51 27.2
Pad C (195 days of production)
MP well 39362 6.44 123.85
Offset (Type I) 34830 13.0 5.51 17.0 108.71 13.9

Table 6Normalized production (condensate and gas in BOE, 6 Mcf:1bbl) comparisons by

lateral length, lateral length and proppant mass^ 1/2, and lateral length and water volume^1/2.

Production

Lateral Length Proppant Mass Lateral Length Water Volume

BOE/(1000 ftlbm^(1/2)) MP Uplift BOE/(1000 ftbbl^(1/2)) MP Uplift

% %

Pad A (279 days of production)

MP well 18.2 75.9
Offset ave. (Type I, Type II, Type III) 16.3 12.2 70.3 7.9
Offset ave. (Type I, Type II) 16.2 12.5 69.0 10.0
Inside offset ave. (Type I, Type II) 16.4 11.1 70.4 7.9
Inside Offset Average w/o Type I 16.9 7.7 70.6 7.6
Pad B (110 days of production)
MP well 10.0 44.0
Offset ave. (Type I, Type II, Type III) 9.3 7.6 42.3 4.0
Offset ave. (Type I, Type II) 9.1 10.2 39.3 12.0
Inside Offset 8.7 15.0 36.5 20.8
Pad C (195 days of production)
MP well 15.9 69.8
Offset (Type I) 13.8 15.0 61.5 13.5
SPE-184863-MS 11

Figure 9Normalized production (condensate and gas in BOE, 6 Mcf:1bbl) comparisons by lateral
length, proppant mass^() and days (279 days for Pad A, 110 days for Pad B, and 195 days for Pad C).

Pad A Field Trial Results. Overall, the MP well in this field trial outperformed its offsets. In terms of
gas production, the MP well outperformed the offsets with similar proppant mass by 10 to 20% depending
on normalization. If the Type III well is included and the higher proppant mass on that well is accounted
for then the MP well averaged approximately 14% higher production (Fig. 10, Table 7). The condensate
production was not as straight forward. The MP well did generally outperform the Type I job design; but, it
only appears to be on par with the other two types. However, the MP well has a shallower decline than the
Type I and II wells and, when proppant is accounted for in the normalization, it seems to outperform those
two groups long term and at least stay on par with the Type III well (Figs. 11 and 12).

Table 7Gas and condensate production comparison for Pad A.

Production (279 days)

Lateral Length Lateral Length Proppant Mass Lateral Length Water Volume

Mcf/1000 ft bbl/1000 ft Mcf/(1000 bbl/(1000 Mcf/(1000 bbl/(1000

ftlbm^(1/2)) ftlbm^(1/2)) ftbbl^(1/2)) ftbbl^(1/2))

MP 201095 8824 86.67 3.80 360.60 15.82

Type I 169615 7999 72.04 3.40 326.77 15.41
% 18.6 10.3 20.3 12.0 10.4 2.7
Type II (higher water), ave. 177219 8916 76.06 3.82 316.65 15.92
% 13.5 1.0 14.0 0.6 13.9 0.6
Type III (higher proppant) 198466 10004 75.74 3.82 349.05 17.59
% 1.3 11.8 14.4 0.4 3.3 10.1
12 SPE-184863-MS

Figure 10Gas production comparison of Pad A wells normalized to lateral length and proppant mass.

Figure 11Condensate production comparison of Pad A wells normalized to lateral length and proppant mass.

Figure 12Condensate production decline curves for Pad A wells normalized to lateral length.

Pad B Field Trial Results. The MP well in this field trial outperformed both the Type I and II job design
wells in both gas and condensate production no matter how the data was normalized (Figs. 13 and 14,
Table 8). The MP well ranged 5 to 10% better than the Type II and 8 to 10% better than the Type I well in
condensate production. With respect to gas production, the MP well outperformed the Type II well by 16 to
SPE-184863-MS 13

23%. The MP well only had a ~5% uplift in gas production versus the Type I well. But, it should be noted
that gas and condensate production declines are lower on the MP well than the Type I despite the Type I
well being an outside pad well. Something similar could be stated for the Type III well. It outperformed the
MP well in both gas and condensate production without any normalization, but it is also an outside well.
When normalized by lateral length and proppant mass, the MP well outperforms the Type III well in terms
of gas production. And, the type III well also has a sharper decline in production rates when compared to
the MP well (Figs. 15 and 16).

Table 8Gas and condensate production comparison for Pad B.

Production (110 days)

Lateral Length Lateral Length Proppant Mass Lateral Length Water Volume

Mcf/1000 ft bbl/1000 ft Mcf/(1000 bbl/(1000 Mcf/(1000 bbl/(1000

ftlbm^(1/2)) ftlbm^(1/2)) ftbbl^(1/2)) ftbbl^(1/2))

MP 122063 3286 51.62 1.39 227.49 6.12

Type I 116146 2987 49.12 1.26 219.35 5.64
% 5.1 10.0 5.1 10.0 3.7 8.5
Type II (higher water), ave. 104866 3140 44.18 1.32 185.50 5.55
% 16.4 4.6 16.8 5.0 22.6 10.3
Type III (higher proppant) 130042 5225 47.01 1.89 233.66 9.39
% 6.1 37.1 9.8 26.4 2.6 34.8

Figure 13Gas production comparison of Pad B wells normalized to lateral length (MP vs type I and type II).
14 SPE-184863-MS

Figure 14Condensate production comparison of Pad B wells normalized to lateral length (MP vs type I and type II).

Figure 15Daily Gas production normalized to proppant mass of Pad B wells (MP vs type III).

Figure 16Daily Condensate production normalized to proppant mass of Pad B wells (MP vs type III).
SPE-184863-MS 15

Pad C Field Trial Results. This trial consisted of only two wells: one MP well and one non MP well.
Both wells had similar lateral lengths, proppant mass, and water volumes. This trial is probably the fairest
comparison between a MP well and a non-MP well. The MP outperformed its offset in both gas and
condensate production (Figs. 17 and 18). The MP well average 10 to 12 % higher gas production and 23
to 25% condensate production than its immediate offset.

Figure 17Gas production comparison of Pad C wells normalized to lateral length.

Figure 18Condensate production comparison of Pad C wells normalized to lateral length.

Operational Advantage. Because of the presence PDL in Woodford stimulations, excessively high treating
pressures are oftentimes encountered. As a result, the achievable treatment rate can be limited and the
risk of a premature screenout can be high as a result of the high degree leakoff associated with the PDL
fractures. As stated previously, PDL is most pronounced in Woodford stimulation treatments in the early
portions of those treatments. This early time of PDL dilation presents the best opportunity to place MP in
the PDL network. Prior to the field trials above, MP was tested on a well to assess the potential operational
16 SPE-184863-MS

benefits. MP was utilized intermittently on 30% of stimulation stages on the well in the initial pad stages.
What was consistently observed on the stages where MP was pumped in the pad stages was that there
was approximately 400 to 800 psi treating pressure reduction on each of the stages when MP would reach
formation allowing for earlier design treatment rate achievement. Fig. 19 is an example of what was typically
observed.

Figure 19Example of pressure reduction as a result of MP reaching formation

during a stimulation treatment. Marker 5 indicates the start of pumping MP on surface
during the initial pad stage and marker 6 indicates the end of MP pumping on surface.

Discussion
Through the analysis of microseismic, core, DFIT, well logs, treatment data, and modeling, it has been
established that PDL is present in the Woodford. That PDL can also be indicative of some degree of
complexity that should be exploited for production. The field trials in this study have demonstrated a
significant improvement in production when MP is used during stimulation treatments. Gas production was
substantially improved on the MP wells compared to immediate offsets in the given time frames. When
compared to wells where the treatment design proppant masses were similar, the MP wells outperformed
those wells in terms of condensate production. However, MP well condensate production had mixed results
when compared to the Type III design. What is apparent, is that the MP wells have decline rates that are
either shallower or on par with the higher proppant designs. And, it should be noted that these are condensate
wells and phase behavior might be playing a role in the differences in liquids production.
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the impact of MP on well production. As such, the
production normalization methods that are used in this study are meant to allow for a fair comparison
of the MP wells to their immediate offsets while accounting for treatment size variations amongst the
wells. As stated previously, increasing job size (i.e., water volume and proppant mass) appears to improve
production in the area. But, there are diminishing returns with those increases. Doubling proppant mass
and water volumes does not guarantee double production. So, normalizing production by those two
variables could result in a skewed view of the impact of MP on well performance unless the inherent
diminishing returns seen with increasing job size is accounted for in some way. Although the relationships
between gas and condensate production and proppant mass and water volumes were assumed to follow a
SPE-184863-MS 17

square root relationship, the relationships could also be interpreted differently for instance, fitted with a
logarithmic function. Regardless of the normalization method, MP proved to have a positive influence on
well production.
The stimulation design trends for the Woodford have been trending to higher proppant and water loads.
Pumping larger volumes should help production short term, but there should equally be a solution for long-
term production. Even the wells treated with higher proppant loadings had steep declines. MP is not meant
to replace conventional proppants, but rather to supplement stimulation designs. Using MP should help
mitigate steep production declines that are oftentimes observed in the Woodford by helping prop open
secondary fractures and keep them open during production. MP also provides a secondary benefit. PDL is
commonly the source of operational inefficiencies. MP has demonstrated that it can help reduce excessive
treating pressures brought on by the PDL NWB network.

Conclusions
Treatment data, DFIT analysis, core data, rock property logs, and microseismic indicate some level
of complexity and the presence of a PDL network
MP is small enough to enter the restricted PDL network, and prop that network open.

Field trials have demonstrated that pumping MP in the initial pad fluid during treatments can
provide additional well production uplift.
There is a secondary benefit to MP in that it can help reduce excessive treating pressure observed
during stimulation treatments associated with PDL.

References
Barree, R.D. and Barree, V.L. 2007. Holistic Fracture Diagnostics. Presented at the Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Technology
Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 1618 April. SPE-107877-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/107877-MS.
Cipolla, C.L., Lolan, E., Mayerhofer, M.J. 2009. The Effect of Proppant Distribution and Un-Propped Fracture
Conductivity on Well Performance in Unconventional Gas Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas 1921 January. SPE-119368-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/119368-
MS.
Cote, A.J., Nguyen, T.H., Crawford, K.A., et al 2007. Case Study: Mixing Proppant Sizes To Control Pressure Dependent
Leak-Off (PDL). Presented at the Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Technology Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 1618
April. SPE-108178-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/108178-MS.
Dahl, J., Calvin, J., Siddiqui, S., et al 2015a. Application of Micro-Proppant in Liquids-Rich, Unconventional Reservoirs
to Improve Well Production: Laboratory Results, Field Results, and Numerical Simulations. Presented at the Abu
Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 912 November. SPE-177663-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/177663-MS.
Dahl, J., Nguyen, P., Dusterhoft, R. et al 2015b. Application of Micro-Proppant to Enhance Well Production in
Unconventional Reservoirs: Laboratory and Field Results. Presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Garden
Grove, California, USA 2730 April. SPE-174060-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/174060-MS.
Fisher, M.K., Wright, C.K., Davidson. B.M. 2002. Integrating Fracture Mapping Technologies to Optimize Stimulations
in the Barnett Shale. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29
September-2 October. SPE-77441-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/77441-MS.
Grieser, W.V. 2011. Oklahoma Woodford Shale: Completion Trends and Production Outcomes from Three Basins.
Presented at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA 2729 March.
SPE-139813-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/139813-MS.
Manoorkar, S., Sedes, O., and Morris, J.F. 2016. Particle Transport in Laboratory Models of Bifurcating Fractures. Journal
of Natural Gas Science and Engineering. 33: 11691180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.04.008.
Mayerhofer, M.J., Lolon, E., Warpinski, N.R. et al 2008. What is Stimulated Rock Volume? SPE Shale Gas Production
Conference, Fort Worth, Texas, 1618 November. SPE-119890-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/119890-MS.
Nguyen, P.D., Vo, J.K., Mock, B.D. et al 2013. Evaluating Treatment Methods for Enhancing Microfracture Conductivity
in Tight Formations. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition-Asia Pacific,
Brisbane, Australia, 1113 November. SPE-167092-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/167092-MS.
18 SPE-184863-MS

Northcutt, J.C., Robertson, C.J., Hannah, R.R., et al 1988. State-of-the-Art Fracture Stimulation of the Upper Morrow
Formation in the Anadarko Basin. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas,
25 October. SPE-18260-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/18260-MS.
Warpinski, N.R., Branagan, P.T., Peterson, R.E. et al 1998. An Interpretation of M-Site Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostic
Results. Presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado
58 April. SPE-39950-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/39950-MS.
Warpinski, N.R., Mayerhofer, M.J., Vincent, M.C. et al 2008. Stimulating Unconventional Reservoirs: Maximizing
Network Growth While Optimizing Fracture Conductivity. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Reservoirs
Conference, Keystone, Colorad, 1012 February. SPE-114173-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/114173-MS.
Warpinski, N.R. 2009. Stress Amplification and Arch Dimensions In Proppant Beds Deposited by Waterfracs. Presented
at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 1921 January. SPE-119350-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/119350-MS.
Wood, D.D., Schmit, B.E., Riggins, L. et al 2011. Cana Woodford Stimulation Practices-A Case History. Presented at the
North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, 1416 June. SPE-143960-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/143960-MS.
Woodworth, T.R. and Miskimins, J.L. 2007. Extrapolation of Laboratory Proppant Placement Behavior to the Field
in Slickwater Fracturing Applications. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, College
Station, Texas, 2931 January. SPE-106089-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/106089-MS.