World Oil

®
Originally appeared in SEPTEMBER 2016 issue, pgs 67-70. Posted with permission.
SHALETECH / TECHNOLOGY INNOVATIONS

Evaluating diversion techniques to increase

stimulation effectiveness in the Eagle Ford
A study in the Eagle Ford shale assessed the Fig. 1. Relative well location for the first area. Each well is labeled
with the volume of oil produced on the date of first production of
challenges associated with cluster efficiency the diverter wells.
in horizontal plug-and-perf treatments, as
P36
well as the application and methodology of P34
using a diverter. Production was analyzed P35
P30
to validate the diverter’s performance, and 330 ft
P20 450 ft
fiber-optic data provided subsurface insight 0 bbl
P21 66,794 bbl
to validate diversion effectiveness. 21 20
26 P22 68,521 bbl
22 330 ft 71,141 bbl
10 11 330 ft 1,000 ft 69,880 bbl
ŝŝSHEA EVANS, KIRK DAWSON and MATTHEW MONTES, 330 ft 61,656 bbl
Halliburton; GREG PRESTON and SCOTT HUDSON, Carrizo Oil and Gas 1,500 ft 2,400 ft
330 ft 57,657 bbl
66,132 bbl
A number of studies and publications have investigated
cluster efficiency in multi-cluster stimulation treatments in
unconventional reservoirs, using both production logs and fi-
ber optics. The results of these publications reveal that a major
95
challenge, with simultaneously stimulating multiple perforation 92 93
94
North
clusters in a single treatment, is ensuring that the fluid and prop- 0 bbl Scale
pant are equally distributed between all clusters. One technique 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 ft
used to confront this challenge has been to deploy a biodegrad-
able particulate diverting agent into the stimulation treatment,
to redistribute fluid and improve cluster efficiency. tion clusters during a fracture stimulation treatment. A high
In the Eagle Ford shale, 61 wells were selected for a con- cluster efficiency would mean all clusters, in a given fracture
trolled study: 13 of the these wells used the diverter material treatment interval, receive equal amounts of fluid and proppant,
and 48 were used as control wells. In addition, one of the divert- creating uniform fracture half-lengths.
er wells incorporated fiber-optic technology, to provide exten- As operators attempt to reduce unnecessary costs and im-
sive diagnostic and reservoir characterization, to gain subsur- prove production by treating more clusters per stages, it is im-
face understanding of the effectiveness of the diverting agent. portant that stimulation cluster efficiency is understood, and
Project location. The study was performed in Texas’ La methods are put in place to help reduce the percentage of un-
Salle and McMullen counties in the volatile oil window of the derstimulated clusters. Also, as wells are drilled on tighter spac-
Eagle Ford shale. The 61 wells in the study were in five different ing, it is imperative that fracture stimulations be kept as close
areas, which were strategically chosen to investigate the impact to the designated drainage area as possible, to maximize near-
of the diverter in various phases of reservoir development. To wellbore complexity and, correspondingly, oil recovery within
understand how various reservoir conditions affect the effec- the drainage window. The use of diverters can help increase
tiveness of the diverter, wells were selected in both undisturbed near-wellbore complexity and prevent the creation of longer
reservoir and in areas in close proximity to the drainage areas fractures that would stimulate rock normally stimulated in the
of existing wells. Stimulating wells in close proximity to exist- offset well.
ing, producing wells adds its own set of challenges, including Wells that are drilled adjacent to offset production face a dif-
well-to-well interference and its effects on the stimulation effec- ferent challenge. The pressure sink created within the designated
tiveness. Well interference and loss of fracture efficiency, from drainage area of an offset well, combined with fractures created
pressure sinks caused by offset wells, will appropriate fracture that extend past the drainage area of the well, create potential
energy and therefore reduce reservoir stimulation effectiveness. paths for the loss of fracture energy pumped into new wells. The
use of a diverter, to plug the path of least resistance in the estab-
CLUSTER EFFICIENCY lished drainage area of the offset well, can improve the overall
Perforation cluster efficiency can be defined as a metric fracture efficiency and optimize the stimulation of the new well’s
quantifying the effectiveness of initiating fractures and placing designated drainage area. An indicator of success is that the wells
proportional treatment volumes in all of the intended perfora- closest to the established offsets will have a similar cumulative
World Oil® / SEPTEMBER 2016 67
SHALETECH / TECHNOLOGY INNOVATIONS

Fig. 2. Flowing pressure vs. cumulative BOE/1,000-ft lateral Fig. 4. Flowing pressure vs. cumulative BOE/1,000-ft lateral
comparing all pads in Area 1. comparing the 20 pad, which consisted of four diverter wells
and two non-diverter wells. Wells 20 and 21 were offset to a well
2,500 that had produced 238,000 bbl of oil by the time these wells
30 per. mov. avg. (WP 10s-diverter) were brought onto production. Despite the proximity to drainage
30 per. mov. avg. (WP 20s) from offset wells, these wells still performed similar to other
2,000 30 per. mov. avg. (WP 90s) offsets. Well 22 was the best performer on the pad and had the
30 per. mov. avg. (P 20s) permanently installed fiber optic cable.
Well flowing pressure, psi

30 per. mov. avg. (P 30s)

1,500 2,500
30 per. mov. avg. (20)
1,000 30 per. mov. avg. (21)
2,000 30 per. mov. avg. (22)
30 per. mov. avg. (23)
30 per. mov. avg. (24)

Well flowing pressure, psi

500
1,500 30 per. mov. avg. (25)

0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 1,000
Cumulative BOE/1,000-ft lateral

500
Fig. 3. Relative well location for the fifth area. Each well is labeled
with the volume of oil produced on the date of first production of
the diverter wells. 0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
25 Cumulative BOE/1,000-ft lateral
24
23
22
21 a pressure indication was observed, the rate was increased
20 and the second segment of the treatment was pumped. This
12 method was deployed on each stage of all 12 of the wells in the
diverter well subset, excluding the diagnostic well, in which
variations of the deployment were executed.
10
330 ft
PRODUCTION RESULTS
500 ft The wells were produced with a managed choke schedule
11 1,000 ft
that maintained a similar, constant flowrate for all wells. Be-
1,000 ft cause of this, the production metric used to determine divert-
er effectiveness was the well flowing pressure vs. cumulative
BOE/1,000-ft lateral. The wells that maintained higher flow-
ing pressures, through the controlled production process, were
recognized as the better performers. The flowing pressure was
plotted as a 30-day moving average, and, in some cases, multiple
145,942 bbl
wells were averaged together when drilled on the same pad.
All wells were completed with the same perforation scheme
147,440 bbl North and stimulation design. Variables—such as clusters per stage,
Scale
238,239 bbl shots per foot (sp/ft), stimulation rate, fluid type, fluid volume
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 ft per lateral foot, and proppant per lateral foot—were held con-
stant for all wells during the study. The only completion varia-
tion was the introduction of the diverting agent.
production vs. flowing tubing pressure as the new offset wells that Area 1 consisted of two diverter wells (Wells 10 and 11) and
are farther away from the established production. 15 non-diverter wells, Fig. 1. All wells in this area were drilled with
330-ft well spacing, except for the P30 well, which was drilled with
DIVERTER APPLICATION 450-ft spacing. The non-diverter wells were drilled over four pad
The diverting agent was introduced into the stimulation locations, with the P20s and P30s first production on 8/2014, the
design for this study without necessitating any modification 20s first production on 3/2015, and the 90s first production on
to the standard design variables of proppant volume, prop- 5/2015. The two diverter wells first production was in 1/2015,
pant concentration, fluid volume, fluid type, treatment rate after the P20s and P30s, and before the 20s and 90s.
and perforation scheme. The design consisted of six clusters Figure 2 shows the average flowing pressure for each pad. The
per stage, spaced 40 ft apart, with approximately 1,600 lbm diverter wells outperformed all other wells in this area, by flowing
of proppant per lateral foot. For the diverter wells, the treat- at a higher pressure, at an equivalent cumulative production, indi-
ment was divided into two proppant ramp segments with a cating improved cluster efficiency and reservoir contact.
diverter drop separating them. The diverter was deployed af- Area 2 consisted of four diverter wells (Wells 20, 21, 22, and
ter concluding the proppant schedule ramp of the first portion 23) and 5 non-diverter wells, Fig. 3. The 10s pad was the first
of stage treatment. Before the diverter reached the downhole to begin producing on 4/2012, and the 20s pad, which included
perforations, the rate was reduced to seat the diverter. Once the diverter wells, began producing on 10/2015.
68 SEPTEMBER 2016 / WorldOil.com
SHALETECH / TECHNOLOGY INNOVATIONS
Fig. 5. DAS flow distribution of a treatment stage using the
diverting agent. The pre-diverter stage shows the majority of the
flow in clusters 6, 5 and 4. The reduction in acoustic intensity then
shows the deployment of the diverter and the post-diverter DAS
flow. The post-diverter DAS flow shows similar flow distribution,
with clusters 6, 5 and 4 taking the majority of the flow.
Figure 4 shows a comparison of all wells on the 20 pad. Well
12 is offset to the 20 pad by 500 ft, and produced 238,239 bbl
of oil by the time the 20 pad began producing. Because of the
proximity of Wells 20 and 21 and the pressure sink induced by
offset production, it was expected that the fracture effectiveness
would be impacted by the fracture wings growing into drainage
areas of offset wells. However, the flowing pressure results actu-
ally show Wells 20 and 21 to perform similarly to all other wells
on this pad. This proves the concept that the diverting agent is
reducing the effects of fracture interference, and loss of fracture
efficiency from pressure sinks induced by offset wells, by dis-
tributing fracturing fluid more evenly to all perforation clusters,
reducing the fracture extension into the drainage areas of the
offset wells, and redirecting the fracture energy to a closer prox-
imity to the intended well being stimulated.
Well 22 outperformed all other wells in this pad, and it
should be noted that this was the well that used fiber optics for
real-time stimulation optimization and design improvement. By
monitoring cluster efficiency in real time, design changes were
able to improve cluster efficiency and ultimately the productiv-
ity of this well.
FIBER-OPTIC DIVERTER RESULTS
The well study using fiber optics consisted of 31 total stages,
with 22 of them incorporating the diverting agent. For analysis
of the diverting agent, DAS was the preferred tool to determine
effective diversion, because it allows for a temporal and real-
time view of flow distribution.
Throughout the stimulation of this well, different method-
ologies were applied to the diversion deployment process for
understanding and optimization. Overall, some stages showed
a positive diversion response, while others produced a mini-
mal shift in flow distribution. For those showing a minimal re-
sponse, Fig. 5 illustrates the DAS response, where a nominal
shift in acoustic intensity is observed before and after diverter
treatment. In this example, the flow percentages to each cluster
do not change significantly, even after the diverter treatment.
While this diversion response was not expected, it indicated
that, in the cases where the diverter did not appear to work ef-
fectively, no detrimental impact could be observed to the clus-
ter efficiency of the stage. This also establishes that cluster effi-
ciency improvement is not guaranteed simply by incorporating
diversion product into a stimulation treatment.
The majority of the stages that showed this minimal shift in
acoustic intensity occurred early in the well completion, dur-
Article copyright © 2016 by Gulf Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
70 SEPTEMBER 2016 / WorldOil.com
Not to be distributed in electronic or printed form, or posted on a website, without express written permission of copyright holder.
Fig. 6. The pre-diverter flow profile shows clusters 4, 5 and 6
taking the majority of the treatment fluid. After the diverter
treatment, clusters 6 and 4 are shut off and flow is increased to
clusters 1, 2 and 3.
ing the initial treatment stages. This allowed for the engineering
group to analyze the real-time DAS response of these first stages
and implement design changes to improve the diverter response.
The design changes primarily focused on deployment of
the diverter and the perforation scheme. Changes made to the
deployment of the diverter included concentration, injection
rate, seating rate and volume. The perforation scheme was also
adjusted to alter the initial flow profile, as well as improve di-
version efficiency. These design changes produced improved
diversion responses. Figure 6 is an example of a stage where a
positive diverter response was observed in the DAS data.
CONCLUSION
Through production analysis of multiple areas and perma-
nently installed fiber-optic cable, the following conclusions
were drawn:
• DAS and DTS data showed that, in most cases, fluid is not
evenly distributed to all clusters, leaving many clusters over-
stimulated or under-stimulated.
• Production data from the five areas showed that the diverter
wells outperformed the control wells in most cases. The im-
proved performance indicates that the diverter allowed in-
creased cluster efficiency and reservoir contact.
• Wells drilled near offset producers showed better-than-ex-
pected performance when using the diverting agent, suggest-
ing the diverter improved fluid distribution to each perfo-
ration cluster and reduced fracture energy loss, by diverting
the fluid from the drainage area of offset wells into the tar-
geted drainage area of the newly drilled well.
• Results from the fiber-optic DTS and DAS analysis provide
validation of diversion effectiveness and aided in optimizing
the diversion process.
• Diverter effectiveness can be difficult to determine based on
surface responses, and diagnostic tools, such as downhole
fiber optics, are helpful to fully understand how the diverter
impacts a treatment stage.
• Deploying diverter with an engineered approach and in-
creased subsurface insight led to improved results and more
effective diversion.
The remaining three areas, which were investigated in this
study, produced similar results and conclusions to those found
in the two areas discussed in this article.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This article is an adaptation of URTeC paper 2459883.
Printed in U.S.A.