SPE-184867-MS

Accelerating Completions Concept Select in Unconventional Plays Using

Diagnostics and Frac Modeling

Ali Azad, Kiran Somanchi, Jim R. Brewer, and Daniel Yang, Shell Canada

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
Data pads in unconventional plays have shown significant value when they are carefully designed to tackle
specific problems or concerns. This includes the use of diagnostics to cross-validate development concepts
such as stimulation design, well architecture, frac and well spacing, and numerous other variables. In this
paper, it is demonstrated how various diagnostics technologies together with subsurface data can be used to
calibrate a frac model. The model can then be coupled with a reservoir simulator to accelerate completions
concept select decisions in unconventional plays. This process (a) eliminates multiple field trial costs, (b)
tests different completions and stimulation designs, and (c) assists in de-risking various field development
planning scenarios. This paper focuses on a real-life case-study where integrated diagnostics and modeling
were applied to de-risk multiple completions scenarios. An intermediate planar frac model was calibrated
and used to lower the uncertainty of key frac parameters including frac geometry and conductivity. In
addition, subsurface parameters such as in-situ stresses and rock properties were tuned. The results from
the integrated modeling effort were used to propose future development options for the play.

Introduction
Pad design in unconventional reservoirs is an extensive multivariate problem. The difficulty starts with
subsurface characterization which is highly uncertain. Other than the conventional reservoir quality, rock
mechanical properties play a role in hydraulic fracturing operation. Completion design variables such as
well spacing, architecture and stimulation are interlinked with subsurface variability. The system response
cannot directly be measured. Moreover, the system is not necessarily responsive to every single or combined
change in input variables. In such cases, data analysis has to go ahead of the physics to break down the
complicated problem into segments for incremental learnings. For this reason, data pads (aka field trials)
are proposed to characterize the subsurface, test design scenarios and monitor reservoir response.
In data pads, subsurface properties are characterized through well logs, core and seismic measurements.
Initial flow back data and surface pressure data are also acquired to evaluate the reservoir response to
the completion design. In addition, diagnostic technologies such as micro-seismic (Cipolla et al., 2012;
Warpinski and Wolhart, 2016 and Warpinski et al., 2014), geochemical fingerprinting, (Noyau et al., 1997)
and fiber-optics (e.g., Huckabee, 2009; Molenaar et al., 2012; Cox and Molenaar, 2013; Webster et al., 2013
2 SPE-184867-MS

and Ugueto et al., 2014, 2016, 2017) enhance the understanding of the subsurface dynamics by revealing
hidden aspects of hydraulic fracturing operations. These technologies are complementary; micro-seismic
and geochemical fingerprinting are more useful for reservoir-level insights whereas fiber optics are better
suited for well-level insights (Somanchi et al., 2016). Diagnostics are typically employed for monitoring
hydraulic fracturing operations, and in some cases, the information is used to make real-time changes to frac
design. Post-completion data integration can be used to characterize reservoir behavior, validate various
hypotheses, and assess the impact of well and completions design on well productivity.
Diagnostics by nature are not predictive, i.e., they only shed light on what is happening in the reservoir
and cannot predict the impact of changing key variables such as landing depth, well spacing and tonnage
on fracture geometry and production. For that, modeling exercises are needed to evaluate theories and rank
them against production results. However, both frac and reservoir models can often end up being "black
boxes" or unreliable tools if they are not reasonably anchored to reality (Ugueto et al., 2015). In this situation,
diagnostics together with field-measured data can book-end the models. Empirical diagnostic data provides
bounds for subsurface stresses and pressures levels, fracture geometry and perforation cluster efficiency. The
calibrated model should be able to honor measured data while capturing the overall physics of the operation.

Why Frac Modeling?

There are a number of field development decisions that cannot be made without understanding the
underlying physics. Reservoir quality, pay thickness, fracture surface area and frac conductivity are some
of the basic parameters required for frac design. The additional variables are themselves a function of other
uncontrolled and controlled parameters such as subsurface and rock mechanical quality, well architecture,
well landing, well length, well orientation, well spacing, stimulation design, etc.
In practice, field trials often consist of changing a single variable such as tonnage or frac spacing. The
trial results are compared to a base case design on the same pad to assess uplift. Some companies proactively
deploy multiple diagnostic technologies during hydraulic fracturing, flow back and production phases to
gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between subsurface properties and completions design. This
solution is the most obvious engineering approach as it can be repeated multiple times to eliminate false
conceptual assumptions.
Frac modeling is another option to help with concept select decisions (Piyush et al., 2015; Schofield et
al., 2015; Suarez and Pichon, 2016). Current frac modeling approaches are either very simplistic so that
they do not capture the essential physics; or are overly complicated such that the input variables are not easy
to measure. In either case, modeling is a relatively quick and cheap technique that provides blind results.
In unconventional reservoirs, modeling can barely match reality without calibration data from diagnostics.
However, frac modeling can uncover unique information that cannot easily be captured in a field trial.
Proppant distribution within the fracture (frac conductivity) is an example that is extremely expensive, if
not impossible, to measure in real life.
The topic of discussion for this paper is a hybrid approach. Data pads are reliable but expensive and
modeling is cost effective but blind. In the hybrid approach, a data pad is carefully designed so that field
observation alone can test multiple hypotheses. These scenarios are then used to train a fit-for-purpose
modeling tool. The calibrated model can be cross-validated against observations from other wells on the
same pad. It can then be employed to narrow down the list of pad development scenarios. This approach,
although not as conclusive as collecting hard data, offers a cost efficient workflow to rapidly compare
different pad development concepts. Figure 1 summarizes this concept.
SPE-184867-MS 3

Figure 1Pros and cons of relying only on theoretical modeling and/or data-driven solutions.

For the purpose of this study, a planar stage-centric model was selected. Figure 2 schematically shows
the inputs that go into the calibration and history matching process. The plot in the center shows 2D planes
and frac characteristics of a single stage with three perforation clusters as the results of frac modeling.

Figure 2The inputs for a fully calibrated stage-centric frac modeling. Information of
subsurface and diagnostics help the frac model to be adjusted to field observation.

Case Study: Data Pad Design and Observations

The case study is a 5-well pilot pad in the Montney formation which was designed to collect data at the
appraisal phase of the project. The formation thickness is about 120 meters. The data pad was planned to
tackle two major questions. For a given lateral well spacing, (a) how many well layers (1 vs. 2) are required
to effectively drain the 120-meter formation, and (b) in either case, to determine the optimal landing depth. In
such a thick reservoir, a 2-layer pad with equally-spaced wells seems to be an obvious design. Furthermore,
subsurface screening in adjacent wells indicated the presence of two thin cemented or heterogeneous layers
located at the top and the bottom third of the reservoir. This observation influenced the team to propose a
staggered W well arrangement, as shown in Figure 3.
4 SPE-184867-MS

Figure 3Well arrangement within the reservoir: (a) ideal case and (b) proposed staggered
arrangement considering the potential frac barriers and other operational restrictions.

This well arrangement can potentially test (a) if the middle heterogeneous layer is a hard frac barrier, and
(b) whether landing close to the layer improves the stimulation or restricts the fracture initiation/propagation.
For this type of problem, viscous frac fluid is suggested to encourage fracture height growth. Viscous fluid
was used in stimulating the C-well and the D-well to determine if high viscosity fracturing fluids were
needed to break through the potential barriers.
A series of field measurements and diagnostics were collected to lower the uncertainty of learnings. A
full core was collected in a vertical well to: calibrate petrophysical models, obtain geomechanical data,
understand the geological setting and take geochemical samples. Microseismic, geochemical finger prints,
chemical tracers and well-head pressure data also were acquired. All wells except the B-well were completed
with an uncemented openhole ball-drop sleeve system; the B-well was completed using the cemented
plug and perf architecture. The B-well benefits from an extreme limited entry design with improved frac
diversion. In addition, it was equipped with a behind-casing, permanent fiber optic (FO) cable to evaluate
distribution efficiency in a stage during stimulation and for production profiling post-stimulation (Somanchi
et al, 2017).

Subsurface Observations
The vertical cored well confirmed the presence of the two unfavorable layers. The geological and
petrophysical measurements show laminated and low quality rocks at the top of the reservoir. Log-driven
geomechanical information illustrates a heterogeneous zone with significant variability in mechanical
properties in the lower third of the reservoir (in Fig 4). These alone do not quantitatively predict potential
operational issues and/or their impact on well performance, but they do represent strong evidence which
flags the potential risk associated with the two thin layers at this pads location.
The log panel in Figure 4 shows selected rock properties for the reservoir interval. Combining these
variables (of reservoir quality and mechanical properties) subdivides the reservoir into four rock mechanical
units. The data in the figure is calibrated to actual core measurements and therefore are reliable and in static
ranges.
SPE-184867-MS 5

Figure 4Petrophysical and geomechanical rock properties. From left to right: mineralogy, gamma ray, porosity, density,
minimum horizontal stress, lamination flag (log-based), Young's modulus/Poisson's ratio cross-over and brittleness.

Fracture Propagation
Understanding the created frac geometry, specifically fracture height, is perhaps the most critical learning
from any data pad. There are at least three reasons why measuring fracture geometry is not straight forward:
(a) full characterization of the subsurface for properties, structural discontinuities and special variability
at the scale of a well is almost impossible. This would significantly impact every theoretical assumption
that we have to make for data analysis; (b) current technologies such as microseismic or tracers are indirect
measurements and rely on subjective interpretations (e.g., Cipolla and Wallace, 2014); (c) inconsistency in
terminology such as "frac geometry" is not sufficiently unique or descriptive. Major frac, damaged zone,
stimulated natural fractures, stimulated rock volume, propped frac, fluid front, hydraulic frac, etc. all refer
to similar concepts but cannot be easily distinguished when used in technical conversations.
Because of the high regional stress anisotropy at the location of the data pad aligned with field
observation, a "planar frac" is assumed in this paper for the ease of technical discussions and modeling.
Based on this assumption, it is expected to estimate the frac geometry (height and length) from microseismic
wherever the fluid can reach. Geochemical figure prints show the effective (productive or propped) portion
of the fracture height. Finally, tracer and pressure information can bookend the hydraulic fracture growth.
Microseismic. Results from microseismic in Figure 5 show three typical fracture height growth scenarios.
(a) For the three wells landed high, the fracture covers almost the full height of the reservoir but it mostly
tends to grow downwards. At some locations, it suggests growing into the upper formations. (b) For the two
wells landed low, microseismic events are very dense in the interval below the heterogeneous zone with
some growth into the upper portion of the reservoir. (c) The wells with either slick water or gel-based frac
fluid responded the same way from a microseismic point of view. Figure 5ashows the expected fracture
growth from microseismic for the three typical landing depths. Fig. 5b and 5c show microseismic data for
the B-well.
6 SPE-184867-MS

Figure 5Microseismic results. (a) Fracture height estimation for three typical landing depths observed per
stage, (b) & (c) microseismic events observed in the B-Well, vertical cross section and plan view, respectively.

Other field Observations. Pressure monitoring during stimulation shows that pressure communication is
happening between every well. This is due to the fact that the fractures (or the pressure front ahead of the
fractures) reach adjacent wells and the openhole architecture allows the pressure to be transmitted to the
adjacent wells. This, however, does not necessarily confirm inter-well production communication. Another
piece of valuable information is geochemical figure printing. It estimates that all wells produces from the
layers below the landing depth only. Slight production communication is also reported from shut-in exercises
in selected wells. For the B-well, it suggests an uncertain production communication with the D-well.

Diversion Efficiency
The B-well was completed with a cemented plug and perf architecture with an externally clamped fiber-
optic (FO) cable (Somanchi et al., 2017). Three perforation clusters per stage with 50 meters spacing and 31
tonnes/cluster was designed to improve the frac diversion. The FO cable was used to monitor distribution
efficiency within each stage. It was also used for continuous production profiling over IP90. Figure 6
summarizes the diversion efficiency in each stage as estimated by FO distributed acoustic sensing (DAS).
The size of the bars in Figure 6 schematically illustrates the continuity of cluster activity from the beginning
to the end of stimulation. This information is critical for evaluating the limited entry trial and to have a
realistic understanding of the number of initiated/propagated fracs. DAS is a useful tool for frac model
calibration as it can estimate the volume and tonnage pumped into each fracture.

Figure 6Poisson's ratio in the background and perforation cluster uniformity for every stage.
SPE-184867-MS 7

Model Calibration and Cross-Validation

The main goal of a calibrated model is to create a proxy that can predict reservoir performance with
changing variables. The model should (a) capture essential physics and match empirical observations from
diagnostics, (b) be responsive to mimic blind tests, and (c) be predictive for alternative design scenarios.
The calibrated frac model should link to a reservoir simulation to quantify uplift and run economics.
The toe-section of the B-well (stages 2 to 6 in Figure 6) was chosen for the first modeling phase because of
the (a) uniformity in treatment distribution at cluster level, (b) closeness to the microseismic monitoring well
and (c) minimum changes in rock properties and the rate of penetration. Rock permeability was amplified 5
times compared to the core measurement. This is due to the fact that the model is limited to planar fractures
and the stimulated rock around the frac is not impacted. So, the increase in permeability seems to be realistic.
Proppant placement per cluster in the model was history matched. This was accomplished by adjusting the
model perforation diameters to calculated post-treatment hole size (Somanchi, et al., 2016).
Figure 7a displays the estimated fracture geometry from microseismic for, stages 2 to 6. Effective fracture
height that is assumed to be the "productive" section of the frac is also plotted in the same figure. Figure
7b shows that there is a good match between the DAS-derived vs modelled sand placement values. The
adjusted friction mechanism at the perforations matches sand placement per frac to the observation. The
two adjustments (rock permeability and perforation friction) provided a calibrated frac model. Results from
the frac model calibration for a single fracture are reflected in Figure 7c. The latter shows that modelled
fracture geometry is in good agreement with field observations. The fracture reaches other wells within
the reservoir interval but little to no proppant is placed in the far reaches of the modelled fracture. This
model also explains the observed production communication between the B-well and the D-well; they are
connected to each other though the propped (or highly conductive) portion of fracture.

Figure 7(a) Estimated frac dimensions from microseismic and geochemical finger printing
for stages 2 to 6 in the B-well, (b) calibrated sand/fluid contribution at cluster-level to fiber
optic DAS and (c) proppant concentration in on single frac resulted from model calibration.

Two landing depth cases were modelled for cross-validation. This is due to the variation in landing zone
among the 5 wells. If the model is well calibrated and captures essential physics, it should match the fracture
geometry for other landing depths.

Growth into upper formations. As shown in Figure 5b, fractures closer to the heel have a tendency to
grow out of zone into the upper formations. This is also apparent in Figure 8a. Poisson's ratio volumes from
3D seismic (Figure 6) indicate lateral rock mechanical property changes. To cross-validate against field
observations, the static rock property model at the heel were slightly altered to mimic that of the B-well.
The change is sufficiently effective to encourage upward growth first and propagation into the lower layers
at later time. The result of this case is reflected in Figure 8b.
8 SPE-184867-MS

Figure 8(a) Microseismic event density map, vertical cross section, normalized for height estimation (b) modeled frac
geometry and proppant concentration when rock properties is altered for the changes at the heel of the B-well, (c) modeled
frac geometry and proppant concentration when the well is landed inside or slightly below the lower heterogeneous zone.

Landing low. Another cross-validation attempt was made by shifting the landing depth below the lower
frac barrier. Microseismic shows very little to no fracture growth into the upper layers. The initial model
was used but in this case the well was shifted to a location below the lower frac barrier. The result is shown
in Figure 8c. There is virtually no upward height growth, suggesting this would not be an ideal landing
depth given the current completion design.
These two cross-validation attempts verify that the model has been sufficiently calibrated and can be
used to predict fracture geometry for different single-well scenarios.
Results from the calibrated frac model were exported into a reservoir simulator. Due to the differences
in the preferred grid size between the frac model and reservoir simulator, grid upscaling was required as
shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9(a) proppant concentration of all modeled fractures in high resolution, (b) up-scaled proppant concentration
in reservoir- scale proffered resolution, (c) the exported geometry and frac characteristics in a reservoir simulator.

In production history matching, there are two major parameters that can be altered: reservoir permeability
and fracture conductivity both are highly uncertain in magnitude. Cumulative production for stages 2-5
was obtained from DAS continuous production profiling (Panhuis et al., 2014). We chose to history match
cumulative gas volume over IP180 by altering the reservoir permeability until the modelled volume matched
that measured from DAS. As shown in Figure 10, there is excellent agreement between the modelled and
measured cumulative volumes at a permeability of 1.6 nD.
SPE-184867-MS 9

Figure 10Left: predicted pressure changes in a reservoir model for stages 2 to 6. Right:
the result of production history matching for a short period of time for the modeled stages.

The matched model in Figure 10 is perhaps one of the realizations that can honor the production history.
This task requires careful sensitivity analysis to ensure the selected realization is in good alignment with
the inputs from disciplines other than reservoir engineering. The model in Figure 10 shows early stages of
depletion that is occurring primarily near the fractures.
Although multiple variables still remain uncertain, the frac-reservoir coupled modeling has effectively
captured key features of the operation and provided realistic room for sensitivity analysis. In decoupled
reservoir simulations, however, fracture dimensions are assumed to be uniform at every cluster. That
approach offers a black-box proxy that is good enough for history matching but it is not reliable for further
optimization.

Modeling for Optimization

The first application of the calibrated model was to optimize the landing depth. Figure 8c clearly shows
that landing at or below the heterogeneous zone is risky because of the potential fracture height limitations.
Fracture height growth is also strongly linked to the pumping volume/rate and plug and perf completions
architecture. The first scenario tested was the impact of landing depth with the same completions and
model settings. Figure 11 shows that the optimal landing depth is likely in between the two heterogeneous
layers. Although it is hard to quantify the impact on production from a frac modeling point of view, the
proposed landing depth appears to be a better solution. First, the well is better connected to the fracture
which improves the drainage mechanism within the fracture and potentially inside the reservoir, and second,
the improvement in near wellbore conductivity implies that the well is better connected to the reservoir such
that the frac will remain open for a longer time. This result suggests a single layer development plan for
this play instead of a staggered or two-layer arrangement.
10 SPE-184867-MS

Figure 11(a) Proppant concentration for the current well landing depth, (b) estimated
fracture geometry and proppant concentration for a newly suggested landing depth.

Up to this point, all learnings and validation were premised upon the base completion (plug and perf)
and stimulation design. The confidence level is higher for these results due to the fact that no significant
change was introduced to the model. Once the model has been sufficiently calibrated and cross-validated
against multiple scenarios, it can be used in the optimization/prediction mode. In this space, only conceptual
learnings from nearby operations can be employed for comparison. This implies that the level of uncertainty
increases when drawing conclusion from the predictive model results at this stage.
For the case study discussed in this paper, alternative completion and stimulation scenarios must be
carried out in modeling space, otherwise, field trials, even if financially viable, do not guarantee timely
decision making. A hierarchical structure has to be defined so that important variables are not changed
simultaneously. Increases in proppant tonnage, cemented sleeves single entry point architecture vs. multi-
port systems and well spacing optimization are of key importance in developing this play. These parameters
are linked to each other. In practice, well spacing (or number of wells per section) is believed to have a
significant impact on pad economics. Once the well spacing is fixed or limited to a few scenarios, frac
design can be further optimized.
One completion variable that was tested was the application of cemented sleeve single entry point
architecture systems. In theory, single entry point architecture encourages a single frac initiation per stage,
creates similar fractures along the well, and focuses all fluid pumped per stage to propagate a single fracture
(compared to multiple fracs in standard plug and perf architecture). A second variable was to increase
the tonnage per frac from 30 tonnes (current design) to 50 tonnes. Figure 12 illustrates the frac modeling
trial results for two completion design alternatives. As shown, both cases extend fracture dimensions,
eliminate the risk of fracture barriers, and improve fracture conductivity. However, the major question
remains unanswered if next steps are not taken in reservoir simulation. For a given well spacing, does
switching to a more expensive completions architecture and higher tonnage improve economic metrics and
reduce unit development cost? This question can be answered with a calibrated reservoir model (Figure
9) and is something the authors are currently exploring further. The lack of hard empirical data, coupled
modeling is the only option that links engineering variables to economics.
SPE-184867-MS 11

Figure 12Proppant concentration for three fractures with 50m frac spacing. (a) cemented plug-and-
perf system, three perforations per stage, maximum pumping rate @ 6 m3/min, 180 m3 slurry volume per
frac, 30 tonnes per frac, (b) hypothetical single port cemented sleeve system, maximum pumping rate
@ 8 m3/min, 320 m3 slurry volume per frac, 30 tonnes per frac, (c) hypothetical single port cemented
sleeve system, maximum pumping rate @ 8 m3/min, 420 m3 slurry volume per frac, 50 tonnes per frac.

Summary and Discussion

Using an actual case study in the Montney formation, the value of designing a data pad for specific pad
development concepts was discussed. The application of diagnostics such as microseismic, fiber optics and
geochemical finger printing in frac geometry estimation were also explored. It was shown how subsurface
and diagnostics information collected can be employed to calibrate a frac and reservoir model. After cross-
validating models with empirical data, the model can then be used in optimization space. In this paper, frac
modeling results for two alternative completions and stimulation designs were also explored.
For the dynamic and fast paced nature of Unconventionals, a hierarchical design process has to be
followed to optimize well and pad economics. Otherwise, a base-line for comparison can never be reached.
Grouping effective variables and ranking them against their economic impacts, perhaps, is an engineering
way to unlock the difficulty of the pad optimization. As suggested in Figure 13, constraining major
development variables such as number of wells and well orientation is the first step. Data pads together with
modeling exercises come second to optimize the stimulation and drainage mechanisms. For a given well
spacing, this paper focuses on the second step in order to optimize number of well layers, landing depth
and alternative well architecture.

Figure 13Multivariate and interlinked pad optimization process in unconventional

plays. This chart groups the involved variables for completion concept select.
12 SPE-184867-MS

Acknowledgements
As the reader may expect from the paper, this study is part of a larger multi-disciplinary and integrated
effort. The authors, hence, would like to greatly acknowledge their team mates who contributed to this work
or facilitated publishing the paper: Solange Angulo, Jonathan Winsor, Felix Todea, Cai Wenyuan, Amr El-
Azhary, Lavern Stasiuk, Jerome Santiago, Justine Keenan, Irma Eggenkamp, Mathieu Rae, David Deline,
Paul Huckabee, Sanjay Vitthal and Cris OBrien.

References
Cipolla, C., 2015. How do we Optimize Hydraulic Fracturing in Shale Resource Plays?. Learning from the Past
and Predicting the Future. SPE 176014-PT, SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 3-5 February, The
Woodlands, Texas, USA.
Cipolla, C., Wallace, J., 2014. Stimulated Reservoir Volume: A Misapplied Concept, Keynote Presentation, SPE 168596-
MS.
Cipolla, C.L., Maxwell, S.C., Mack, M.G., 2012. Engineering Guide to the Application of Microseismic Interpretations.
SPE 152165-MS, SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 6-8 February, The Woodlands, Texas, USA.
Cox, B.E., Molenaar, M.M., 2013. Field Cases of Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation Diagnostics Using Fiber Optic
Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) Measurements and Analyses. SPE-164030-MS, SPE Unconventional Gas
Conference and Exhibition, 28-30 January, Muscat, Oman.
Huckabee, P.T., 2009. Optic Fiber Distributed Temperature for Fracture Stimulation Diagnostics and Well Performance
Evaluation. SPE 118831-MS, SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 19-21 January, The Woodlands,
Texas.
Molenaar, M.M, Hill, D., Webster, P., Fidan, E., Birch, B., 2012. First Downhole Application of Distributed Acoustic
Sensing for Hydraulic-Fracturing Monitoring and Diagnostics. SPE Drilling & Completion Journal, 27 (01).
Noyau, A, Chavagnac Ph., Tegelaar, E.W., and Daugas, F., 1997. Reservoir Characterization Applying Geochemical
Techniques: Case Study from Yemen. SPE-037703-MS, Middle East Oil Show and Conference, 15-18 March, Bahrain.
Panhuis, I., den Boer, H., Van Der Horst, J., Paleja, R., Randell, D., Joinson, D., McIvor, P.B., Green, K., Bartlett. R.,
2014. Flow Monitoring and Production Profiling using DAS. SPE-170917-MS, SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, 27-29 October, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pankaj, P., Geetan, S., MacDonald, R., Qiu, F., Porcu, Marongiu Pocu, M., Xu, J., Malpani, R., Pope, T.L., 2015.
Reservoir Modeling for Pad Optimization in the Context of Hydraulic Fracturing. SPE 176865-MS, SPE Asia Pacific
Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition, 9-11 November, Brisbane, Australia.
Schofield, J., Rodriguez-Herrera, A., Garcia-Teijeiro, X., 2015. Optimization of Well Pad & Completion Design for
Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation in Unconventional Reservoirs. SPE 174332-MS, EUROPEC 2015, 1-4 June, Madrid,
Spain.
Somanchi, K., Brewer, J., Reynolds, A., 2017. Extreme Limited Entry Design Improves Distribution Efficiency in Plug-
n-Perf Completions: Insights From Fiber-Optic Diagnostics. SPE-18434-MS, SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Conference and Exhibition, 24 - 26 Jan, The Woodlands, Texas, USA.
Somanchi, K., O'Brien, C., Huckabee, P.T., Ugueto, G.A., 2016. Insights and Observations into Limited Entry Perforation
Dynamics from Fiber-Optic Diagnostics. 2458389-MS URTEC, SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference,
9-11 February, The Woodlands, Texas, USA.
Suarez, M., Pichon, S., 2016. Completion and Well Spacing Optimization for Horizontal Wells in Pad Development in
the Vaca Muerta Shale, SPE 180956-MS, SPE Argentina Exploration and Production of Unconventional Resources
Symposium, 1-3 June, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Ugueto, G.A., Huckabee, P.T., Somanchi, K., Acosta, L.R., Den Boer, H., Tummers, R., Crowther, G.C., 2017. Accelerated
Completion De-Risking and Stimulation Optimization via Long Term Flow Monitoring using Distributed Acoustic
Sensing. SPE 184842-MS, SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition, 24 - 26 Jan, The
Woodlands, Texas, USA.
Ugueto C., G.A., Huckabee, P.T., Molenaar, M.M., Wyker, B., Somanchi, K., 2016. Perforation Cluster Efficiency of
Cemented Plug and Perf Limited Entry Completions; Insights from Fiber Optics Diagnostics, SPE 179124-MS, SPE
Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 9-11 February, The Woodlands, Texas, USA.
Ugueto, G.A., Huckabee, P.T., Molenaar, M.M., 2015. Challenging Assumptions About Fracture Stimulation Placement
Effectiveness Using Fiber Optic Distributed Sensing Diagnostics: Diversion, Stage Isolation and Overflushing. SPE
173348-MS, SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 3-5 February, The Woodlands, Texas, USA.
Ugueto, G.A., Ehiwario, M., Grae, A., Molenaar, M.M., Mccoy, K., Huckabee, P.T., Barree, R.D. 2014. Application
of Integrated Advanced Diagnostics and Modeling To Improve Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation Analysis and
SPE-184867-MS 13

Optimization. SPE 168603-MS, SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 4-6 February, The Woodlands,
Texas, USA.
Warpinski, N.R., Wolhart, S., 2016. A Validation Assessment of Microseismic Monitoring. SPE 179150-MS, SPE
Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 9-11 February, The Woodlands, Texas, USA.
Warpinski, N.R., Mayerhofer, M.J., Davis, E.J., Holley, E.H. 2014. Integrating Fracture Diagnostics for Improved
Microseismic Interpretation and Stimulation Modeling. SPE-2014-1917906-MS, Unconventional Resources
Technology Conference, 25-27 August, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Warpinski, N.R. 2009. Integrating Microseismic Monitoring with Well Completions, Reservoir Behavior, and Rock
Mechanics. SPE 125239-MS, SPE Tight Gas Completions Conference, 15-17 June, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Webster, P., Cox, B., Molenaar, M.M., 2013. Developments in Diagnostic Tools for Hydraulic Fracture Geometry Analysis.
SPE 168933-MS, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, 12-14 August, Denver, Colorado, USA.