Babatunde Ajayi

Seneca Resources Corporation

Stimulation Design for
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA Unconventional Resources
Iroh Isaac Aso
Ira J. “Jay” Terry, Jr.
Kirby Walker
Kevin Wutherich The oil and gas industry has undergone a renaissance brought on by the development
Canonsburg, Pennsylvania of ultralow-permeability reservoirs, made possible through horizontal drilling and
Jacob Caplan hydraulic fracturing. Recent innovations in systematic engineering design are improv-
Dewey W. Gerdom
PDC Mountaineer LLC ing stimulation effectiveness and well production. Completion engineers are able to
Bridgeport, West Virginia, USA perform the entire design loop, from reservoir characterization to stimulation plan,
Brian D. Clark monitoring and calibration and production evaluation.
Utpal Ganguly
Houston, Texas, USA

Xianwen Li
Yonggao Xu
Hua Yang
PetroChina Changqing Oilfield Company
Xi’an, Shaanxi, People’s Republic of China
Hai Liu
Beijing, People’s Republic of China
Yin Luo
Chengdu, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China
George Waters
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
Oilfield Review Summer 2013: 25, no. 2.
Copyright © 2013 Schlumberger.
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Paul
A. Babasick, Houston; John P. McGinnis and Barry L.
McMahan, Seneca Resources Corporation, Houston; and
Michael Yang, Beijing.
Mangrove, Petrel, RST, Sonic Scanner, StimMAP LIVE and
UFM are marks of Schlumberger.
INTERSECT is a joint mark of Schlumberger, Chevron
and Total.
1. For more on current horizontal drilling technology:
Felczak E, Torre A, Godwin ND, Mantle K, Naganathan S,
Hawkins R, Li K, Jones S and Slayden F: “The Best of
Both Worlds—A Hybrid Rotary Steerable System,”
Oilfield Review 23, no. 4 (Winter 2011/2012): 36–44.
For more on steering horizontal wells: Amer A,
Chinellato F, Collins S, Denichou J-M, Dubourg I,
Griffiths R, Koepsell R, Lyngra S, Marza P, Murray D and
Roberts I: “Structural Steering—A Path to Productivity,”
Oilfield Review 25, no. 1 (Spring 2013): 14–31.
2. Miller C, Waters G and Rylander E: “Evaluation of
Production Log Data from Horizontal Wells Drilled in
Organic Shales,” paper SPE 144326, presented at the
SPE North American Unconventional Gas Conference
and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA,
June 14–16, 2011.
The ability to efficiently exploit ultralow-permea-
bility plays has invigorated the oil and gas indus-
try around the globe. The transition from vertical
to horizontal wells was spurred by development
of revolutionary techniques for drilling and com-
pletion. Eventually, completion and stimulation
design for horizontal wells evolved into a stan-
dard template—the geometric method, whereby
engineers divide the horizontal wellbore length
evenly into the number of planned intervals, or
stages, designated for fracture treatment. To pro-
mote fracture growth from multiple starting
points, engineers then design stages typically
with two to eight perforation clusters distributed
uniformly along the stage length.
The geometric approach for fracture design
ignores the vertical and horizontal heterogeneity
of unconventional reservoirs. Vertical wells may
penetrate a stack of highly variable sandstone and
shale strata. Horizontal wells may wander through
heterogeneous portions of a reservoir, or even
completely out of a reservoir, depending on how
closely the driller was able to follow the target
zone. Geologic heterogeneity along wellbores
causes wide variability of rock properties that, in
turn, directly affect where fracturing stages will
encounter producible reservoir rock. Consequently,
the geometric placement of stages often results in
poor well performance, leading completion engi-
neers to use manual, time-intensive methods of
picking stage and perforation locations based on
subtle well log characteristics.
Increasingly, directional wells are being
drilled and steered based on logging-while-drill-
ing (LWD) data.1 Engineers can use these
measurements to characterize small-scale het-
erogeneities that horizontal wells encounter as
they penetrate stratified formations. However,
even with the addition of LWD data to help in
planning stimulation programs, well perfor-
mance has been difficult to predict.
Recently, Schlumberger engineers analyzed
production logs from more than 100 horizontal
shale gas wells in six US shale basins to identify
factors that influence the effectiveness of hydrau-
lic fracture completions.2 The analysis indicated
that perforation efficiency—the percentage of
perforation clusters that contribute to produc-
tion—was about 70%. Nearly a third of the clus-
ters contributed nothing to production. The
investigators looked deeper into the data to
explain this inefficiency.
The data showed that increasing the number
of fracture stages and decreasing the distance
between stages and between perforation clusters
correlated with a rise in production rate from a
well. Stimulation design is a compromise between
the extremes of a single customized fracture
stage and of multiple stages to cover a wide vari-
ety of rocks. Increasing the number of perfora-
tion clusters and stages is not a guarantee for
success. The analysis suggested that focused
staging is important: Fracture stages should tar-
get rocks with similar petrophysical and geome-
chanical properties.

34 Oilfield Review
Summer 2013 35
 Engineered Stimulations
Reservoir Quality (RQ) Completion Quality (CQ)
While Mangrove software provides a specific
Organic content Mineralogy—mainly clay, carbonate and silica engineering workflow intended for predictive
Thermal maturity model building and evaluation of hydraulic frac-
Mechanical properties—Young’s modulus, ture treatment in unconventional reservoirs, it
Effective porosity Poisson’s ratio and tensile strength
also continues to support workflows and model-
Intrinsic permeability
Natural fractures—presence, density, orientation
ing necessary for conventional reservoirs. The
Fluid saturations—oil, gas,
condensate and water and condition (open, closed or cemented) Mangrove system is capable of accommodating
reservoir heterogeneity, rock fabric, physical
Organic shale thickness
In situ stress—variations between intervals properties and geomechanical properties at a
Hydrocarbons in place accounting for mechanical properties anisotropy
fine level of detail without compromising compu-
> Reservoir quality and completion quality factors. tational efficiency.4
Input to the workflow comes from geologic,
core, well log, seismic, production log and engi-
neering data. Geologists, geophysicists and
Because it was apparent that not every stage stimulation design software for engineering, engineers compile, synthesize and interpret
contributed equally to well productivity, the modeling and designing hydraulic stimulations. these data and summarize them in a common
investigators also examined the contribution of The software facilitates a systematic strategy for 3D earth model. This integration and display are
perforation clusters within fracture stages. They designing multistage stimulations centered on performed within the Petrel E&P software plat-
determined that, like fracture stages, not every single wells embedded within the context of a 3D form. The earth model forms the basis for geo-
cluster contributed equally to production, and earth model of the reservoir. Completion and logic, discrete fracture network (DFN) and
they concluded that the optimal number of perfo- stimulation design is based on multidisciplinary geomechanical models that are input to the
ration clusters per stage ranged from two to five. reservoir characterization that is combined with completion advisor as well as to a number of
The analysis suggested that strategic placement microseismic information for model calibration hydraulic fracture models and to production
of clusters within productive and fracturable geo- and integrated with production forecasting for and forecasting simulators accessible within
logic units was more important than the number design evaluation.3 the Mangrove workflow.
of clusters. This article describes the Mangrove software Engineers use the Mangrove completion advi-
The study results led to fundamental design and outlines case studies that demonstrate how sor to assign levels of reservoir quality and com-
questions: the software helps operators improve well pro- pletion quality to the reservoir rock (above left).
• Is there an optimal number of treatment stages? ductivity. Two examples from the eastern US Reservoir quality (RQ) is a prediction of how
• Is there an optimal location for each treatment show side by side comparisons of well produc- prone the rock is to yield hydrocarbon.
stage along a wellbore? tivities that result from conventional and engi- Completion quality (CQ) is a prediction of how
• Is there an optimal place for perforation clus- neered completions in the Marcellus Shale. An effectively the rock may be stimulated using
ters within stages? example from the Ordos basin of China illus- hydraulic fractures. The RQ and CQ parameters
To address these questions, Schlumberger com- trates improvements to production from low- typically receive binary scores of good or bad
pletion engineers developed the Mangrove reservoir permeability sandstones. based on cutoff criteria for a reservoir. They are
then combined into composite scores that grade
3. Cipolla C, Weng X, Onda H, Nadaraja T, Ganguly U and Suárez-Rivera R, Deenadayalu C, Chertov M,
Malpani R: “New Algorithms and Integrated Workflow for Hartanto RN, Gathogo P and Kunjir R: “Improving the intervals from best to worst for placing frac-
Tight Gas and Shale Completions,” paper SPE 146872, Horizontal Completions on Heterogeneous Tight Shales,” turing stages and perforation clusters within
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and paper CSUG/SPE 146998, presented at the Canadian
Exhibition, Denver, October 30–November 2, 2011. Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, each stage. The best locations have good RQ and
Cipolla C, Lewis R, Maxwell S and Mack M: “Appraising November 15–17, 2011. CQ grades, meaning the rock should be produc-
Unconventional Resource Plays: Separating Reservoir Suárez-Rivera R, Burghardt J, Stanchits S, Edelman E and
Quality from Completion Effectiveness,” paper Surdi A: “Understanding the Effect of Rock Fabric on tive and fracturable (next page).5 The completion
IPTC 14677, presented at the International Petroleum Fracture Complexity for Improving Completion Design and advisor also allows similar quality rocks to be
Technology Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, Well Performance,” paper IPTC 17018, presented at the
February 7–9, 2012. International Petroleum Technology Conference, Beijing, grouped in the same stage, leading to the most
4. Fabric refers to the spacing, arrangement, distribution, March 26–28, 2013. effective multistage treatment. The completion
size, shape and orientation of the constituents of rocks 8. For more on the wiremesh model: Xu W, Thiercelin M, advisor is able to accommodate user-provided
such as minerals, grains, porosity, layering, bed Ganguly U, Weng X, Gu H, Onda H, Sun J and Le Calvez J:
boundaries, lithology contacts and fractures. “Wiremesh: A Novel Shale Fracturing Simulator,” paper operational constraints, such as the maximum
5. For more on fracture staging algorithms: Cipolla et al SPE 132218, presented at the CPS/SPE International Oil stage interval or minimum and maximum perfo-
(2011), reference 3. and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing,
June 8–10, 2010. ration interval, and structural constraints such
6. For more on conventional hydraulic fracture models:
Brady B, Elbel J, Mack M, Morales H, Nolte K and Poe B: 9. For more on the UFM model: Weng X, Kresse O, Cohen C, as fault locations and distances of perforation
“Cracking Rock: Progress in Fracture Treatment Design,” Wu R and Gu H: “Modeling of Hydraulic Fracture-
Network Propagation in a Naturally Fractured clusters from these faults.
Oilfield Review 4, no. 4 (October 1992): 4–17.
7. Jeffrey RG, Zhang X and Thiercelin M: “Hydraulic
Formation,” SPE Production & Operations 26, no. 4 After deciding where to locate stages and per-
(November 2011): 368–380.
Fracture Offsetting in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs: foration clusters, engineers design the stimula-
Quantifying a Long-Recognized Process,” paper SPE Kresse O, Cohen C, Weng X, Wu R and Gu H: “Numerical
119351, presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Modeling of Hydraulic Fracturing in Naturally Fractured tion treatments using hydraulic fracture (HF)
Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, Formations,” paper ARMA 11-363, presented at the simulators. In situations in which the geology is
January 19–21, 2009. 45th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium,
San Francisco, June 26–29, 2011.

36 Oilfield Review
relatively simple, conventional HF simulators are Segments of Similar Lithology
adequate. These time-tested 2D and pseudo-3D
models treat HFs as planes propagating away
from the well in the direction of the maximum
Well segments
principal compressive stress.6 Engineers have the
option to use these models in the Mangrove work-
flow and determine which model is best suited
Austin Chalk
for a given reservoir.
Conventional models are not comprehensive
enough for heterogeneous and naturally frac-
tured reservoirs. Hydraulic fracture growth is
complex, and its characterization requires 3D Upper Eagle Ford Shale
models that incorporate interactions of HFs with
natural fractures while also considering the
impact of HFs on local principal stresses.7 To
address complex situations, the Mangrove system Lower Eagle Ford Shale
provides two fracture models: the wiremesh
hydraulic fracturing model and the UFM uncon-
ventional fracture modeling simulator.
The wiremesh model provides a mathemati-
Buda Limestone
cal equivalent representation of the hydraulic
fracture network.8 The wiremesh approach is
relatively fast and suitable for environments that
lack significant reservoir characterization data. Stages of Similar Rock Quality and Stress Gradient
To improve well productivity, completion design-
ers are able to iterate and parameterize the input
values to obtain an optimal stimulation design for Hydraulic fracturing stages
fracture length, height, surface area and prop-
pant distribution. Austin Chalk
The UFM model is the first commercially
available complex hydraulic fracture model to Rock Quality
incorporate fracture-to-fracture interactions.9 Good RQ and good CQ
Bad RQ and bad CQ
The model accounts for the effects of natural Bad RQ and good CQ
fractures and geomechanical properties on Good RQ and bad CQ
hydraulic fracture growth and predicts den-
dritic—multiple branching—hydraulic fracture Rock quality
Eagle Ford Shale
propagation as well as fluid flow and proppant
transport. Hydraulic fracture growth is governed
Stress gradient
by the rock fabric and geomechanical properties
of the reservoir, the preexisting fracture network Stress gradient
and prevailing in situ stress magnitudes and
Low High
anisotropy. As the HF network develops, it per-
Buda Limestone
turbs the stress field as each fracture surface
becomes pressurized, opened and propped.
Engineers may use the UFM simulator for HF net- > Dividing horizontal laterals into segments and stages. This horizontal well (top center) targets a
work design to optimize well productivity. reservoir zone near the boundary horizon (purple) between the upper and lower Eagle Ford Shale,
which was deposited above the Buda Limestone and below the Austin Chalk. The other horizons are
Regardless of the HF model engineers use to
the top surfaces of the Buda Limestone (blue) and the upper Eagle Ford Shale (brown). Engineers
prepare their initial design, the result must be divided the lateral into segments based on location within the reservoir, the wellbore trajectory and
calibrated during HF stimulations. The Mangrove rock properties. Each segment contains similar lithology along its length. Engineers further subdivided
workflow is able to incorporate results obtained the segments into stages (bottom center) based on similar minimum horizontal stress gradients,
reservoir quality (RQ) and completion quality (CQ) along the length of each stage. Each stage is then a
from monitoring microseismicity induced by candidate for hydraulic stimulation. A color-coded rock quality index, shown above the well, combines
propagating HFs to calibrate the predicted RQ and CQ and indicates the best intervals for stimulation. The relative magnitude of the far field
model. Geophysicists process the microseismicity minimum horizontal stress gradient, shown along the bottom of the well, indicates the relative
data to locate seismic emissions from small slip pressure levels at which the reservoir interval will fracture. [Adapted from Cipolla et al (2011),
reference 3.]
events associated with the development of the

Summer 2013 37
 Perforation cluster

Geometric Placement of Fracture Stages and Perforation Clusters

Fracture stage
Rock Quality
Good RQ and good CQ
Bad RQ and bad CQ
Bad RQ and good CQ
Good RQ and bad CQ

Rock quality

Stress gradient

Stress gradient

Low High

Engineered Placement of Fracture Stages and Perforation Clusters

Rock quality

Stress gradient

> Comparing hydraulic fracture designs for a horizontal well in the Eagle Ford Shale. In a geometric
design (top), fracture stages (inset, four disks of the same color) and perforation clusters (individual
disks) were distributed uniformly along the length of the lateral. In the engineered design from the
Mangrove workflow (bottom), engineers determined the location and length of each fracture stage
and the placement of each perforation cluster from analysis of the composite rock quality scores and
minimum horizontal stress gradients. The optimal design is for all perforation clusters (PCs) to break
down and initiate fractures at more or less the same pressure. The composite RQ and CQ rock quality
index is shown along the top of the well. The relative magnitude of the far field minimum horizontal
stress gradient is shown along the bottom of the well. [Adapted from Cipolla et al (2011), reference 3.]

HFs.10 Often, to increase the precision and accu-
racy of the event locations, geophysicists adjust
their geologic and velocity models. These adjust-
ments, in turn, are used to update the geome-
chanical and the DFN models for the HF models.
Before and after completion of HF stimula-
tions, production engineers run reservoir flow
models to predict the resulting production per-
formance. These models couple mechanical
deformation and pore volume changes. The
fracture models simulate rock deformation, the
creation of conductive fractures and channels in
the reservoir and the placement of proppant into
them. The reservoir simulators predict the flow of
fluids from the reservoir into and through the
higher conductivity pathways created by HFs that
have been propped open. Within the Mangrove
workflow, these calculations may be performed
using the INTERSECT reservoir simulator, which
allows unstructured gridding for a range of grid
densities. Fine gridding in the vicinity of the well-
bore and HF network captures fine-scale details.
Coarse gridding is usually sufficient far from the
wellbore and HF network.11
The Mangrove workflow provides analysis
from data entry to model updates. In this process,
geologic and engineering field data are input for
building models of the reservoir. Engineers use
the models to estimate RQ and CQ (above).
Engineers input the completion design into 2D or

38 Oilfield Review
3D HF simulators for evaluating the fracture
stimulations that will be pumped and then feed
the stimulation design into reservoir simulators
to forecast production.
The system is able to incorporate microseis-
micity monitoring to calibrate steps in the
Mangrove workflow. Such calibration comes from
locating microseismic events precisely and com-
paring these locations with predicted HF growth.
The location of microseismic events may help the
system estimate the effective stimulated reser-
voir volume, which may then be used to adjust the
completion and stimulation strategies of subse-
quent fracture stages or make adjustments even
while stimulation is occurring in some stages.
In addition, to obtain precise microseismic
event locations, geophysicists conduct seismic
velocity inversion, and in the process, adjust the
starting model of the geologic and mechanical
properties within the reservoir zone. The adjusted
model may be used to update predictions of
hydraulic fracture growth and forecasts of reser-
voir production.
The Mangrove workflow centers around com-
pletion and stimulation design for single wells
within the 3D context of a larger reservoir model.
The focus on single wells reduces model size,
enables faster calculations and gives completion
engineers flexibility to make quick decisions and
adjustments to stimulation programs.
The Mangrove software may be run on a sin-
gle platform, which eliminates the need to
migrate data from one software application to
another and to address problems of software
interfaces and interoperability.
10. For more on hydraulic fracture monitoring: Bennett L, Le
Calvez J, Sarver DR, Tanner K, Birk WS, Waters G, Drew
J, Michaud G, Primiero P, Eisner L, Jones R, Leslie D,
Williams MJ, Govenlock J, Klem RC and Tezuka K:
“The Source for Hydraulic Fracture Characterization,”
Oilfield Review 17, no. 4 (Winter 2005/2006): 42–57.
Burch DN, Daniels J, Gillard M, Underhill W, Exler VA,
Favoretti L, Le Calvez J, Lecerf B, Potapenko D,
Maschio L, Morales JA, Samuelson M and Weimann MI:
“Live Hydraulic Fracture Monitoring and Diversion,”
Oilfield Review 21, no. 3 (Autumn 2009): 18–31.
11. For more on the INTERSECT simulator: Edwards DA,
Gunasekera D, Morris J, Shaw G, Shaw K, Walsh D,
Fjerstad PA, Kikani J, Franco J, Hoang V and
Quettier L: “Reservoir Simulation: Keeping Pace with
Oilfield Complexity,” Oilfield Review 23, no. 4
(Winter 2011/2012): 4–15.
12. Walker K, Wutherich K, Terry J, Shreves J and Caplan J:
“Improving Production in the Marcellus Shale Using an
Engineered Completion Design: A Case Study,” paper
SPE 159666, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
October 8–10, 2012.
Gerdom D, Caplan J, Terry IJ Jr, Wutherich K, Wigger E
and Walker K: “Geomechanics Key in Marcellus Wells,”
The American Oil & Gas Reporter 56, no. 3
(March 2013): 84–91.
Summer 2013
A software-mediated systematic approach to
planning, engineering and executing stimulations
has proved to be more effective than convention-
ally planned stimulations. PDC Mountaineer LLC
and Schlumberger obtained favorable results with
engineered completions in the Marcellus Shale.
Comparing Completion Methods
PDC Mountaineer LLC (PDCM) focuses primarily
on natural gas production from the Marcellus
Shale formation. In the company’s efforts to
develop a Marcellus Shale field near Bridgeport
in Harrison County, West Virginia, USA, its first
three horizontal wells were only marginally eco-
nomic. Consequently, PDCM wanted to deter-
mine how to improve production.
The company started each of these first
wells by drilling and logging a vertical pilot well.
Engineers used these data to determine the tar-
get reservoir zone and the landing point for the
horizontal well, or lateral. PDCM then drilled
the laterals using data derived from mud logs
and logging-while-drilling (LWD) gamma ray for
guidance to stay within the target zone. The lat-
erals were completed using designs based on a
geometric method—stages and perforation
clusters distributed uniformly—followed by
slight manual adjustments to the design to move
perforation clusters within each stage to zones
that were estimated to have lower minimum
horizontal stress.12
PDCM and Schlumberger engineers analyzed
the data from the first three wells and concluded
that the completion designs paid little attention to
specific conditions in each well—lithology, reser-
voir quality, mechanical properties and in situ
stresses. Furthermore, examination of stimula-
tion-induced microseismicity monitored during
the treatments showed a relationship between the
locations of perforation clusters, predicted mini-
mum in situ horizontal stress and microseismic
activity; the highest microseismic activity concen-
trated near perforations in rocks of low stress, and
lower activity occurred elsewhere. Fractures
started and grew by taking paths of least resis-
tance. Areas near the geometrically located perfo-
ration clusters were effectively stimulated only
when the clusters happened to be located in easily
fractured rock. Otherwise, areas tended to be
understimulated because the perforation clusters
were not strategically located.
The analysis indicated that optimal stimula-
tions would result if the completions were engi-
neered so each stage and each perforation cluster
contributed to the overall production in propor-
tion to their number. Horizontal wells would be
divided into segments of similar lithology that did
not include discontinuities—primarily faults,
fractures and highly laminated intervals. The seg-
ments would then be divided into stages and per-
forated in rocks of similar minimum horizontal
stress. During each fracture stage, all perfora-
tions would initiate fractures at roughly the same
pumping pressure, the fractures would extend
and propagate together, and eventually, produc-
tion would flow from the fractures in proportion
to the stimulated reservoir volume they contact.
To test this procedure, the PDCM team
selected three new well locations, near the origi-
nal three wells, which had similar reservoir and
completion quality. Except for the engineered
design for distributing the staging and perfora-
tion locations along the laterals, the new wells
would be completed in the same way as the ear-
lier wells.
The wells were drilled in the direction of the
regional minimum in situ principal horizontal
stress to facilitate opening of hydraulic fractures
emanating perpendicularly from the wells. The
lateral wells cut across rocks of variable lithology
and, consequently, mechanical properties, which
dictate how the regional stress field is transmit-
ted through the rock to the local borehole wall.
After drilling the wells and before designing
the completions, the team collected the follow-
ing well information: wellbore directional sur-
veys, gamma ray logs, petrophysical and
mechanical properties for evaluating RQ and
CQ, planned fracture fluid types and properties,
pumping rates, number of stages, number of
perforation clusters per stage and perforation
diameter, density and phasing. The completion
design called for slickwater to be pumped at
80 bbl/min [13 m3/min] through five perforation
clusters in each stage.
Engineers assembled this information in the
Mangrove workflow software and constructed
3D earth models of each well. Based on data
from the 3D earth models, engineers were able
to segment the wells into lengths of similar
lithology; each segment was subdivided into
stages, such that each stage length contained
rock of similar reservoir quality and was capable
of accepting the planned pumping rate. The
team selected perforation locations based on
completion quality. The perforation locations
were adjusted until the models showed that
fractures initiated at each perforation cluster
within a stage at the same pressure within a tol-
erance of 0.01 psi/ft [0.23 kPa/m] for the
39
minimum in situ stress gradient.13 When the
team was satisfied with the completion plans,
the wells were stimulated (below).
Completion engineers conducted each frac-
ture treatment according to the intended prop-
pant schedule. Compared with the treatments in
the original three horizontal wells, the engi-
neered completions were pumped at 10.3% higher
average pumping rates and 5.7% lower average
treating pressures. In addition, the treatments
succeeded in placing 30% more of the designed
proppant load per lateral and experienced no
screenouts (next page, top left).
The team compared the first 30 days of produc-
tion from each well, which revealed a second mea-
sure of success. Compared with the original wells,
the engineered completions resulted in significantly
higher production. During the first 30 days, the
engineered completions resulted in 106% higher ini-
tial cumulative production per foot of stimulated
wellbore length than the original three wells.
Based on these positive results, PDC
Mountaineer now performs engineered comple-
tion designs for all its horizontal wells. The com-
pany has determined that the time and effort
spent on the design are more than offset by the
savings from operational effectiveness during com-
pletions and revenue from increased production.14
Perforating Low-Stress Intervals
Seneca Resources Corporation and Schlumberger
conducted another test of engineered completion
design. Seneca Resources produces natural gas
from Marcellus Shale reservoirs in Pennsylvania
and New York, USA. The company sought to
increase production by maximizing reservoir con-
tact through hydraulic fracture stimulations from
horizontal wells.
Seneca Resources had been stimulating wells
in the Marcellus Shale but results were highly
variable, even from apparently identical wells.
However, the Marcellus Shale comprises many
thin laminations, each distinct from its neighbor
in terms of physical and mechanical properties.
As horizontal wells cut through the formation,
they intercept these varied laminations. The
company teamed with Schlumberger to conduct a
controlled pilot study to test the effectiveness of
engineered completions compared with what had
been standard practice for the company—geo-
metric completions.

Minimum Stimulation
Original 5-ft Moving Average

Measured
Measured Gamma Stress Poisson’s Young’s Calcite Quartz Kerogen Effective Stages

Depth, ft
Depth, Ray Gradient Ratio Modulus Volume Volume Volume Porosity Perforation Minimum Smoothed Minimum
ft 0 gAPI 460 0.67 psi/ft 1.01 –0.17 0.44 2.33 MMpsi 3.93 0 % 100 0 % 100 0 % 25 0 % 15 Cluster Stress Gradient Stress Gradient
Stage 14 0.67 psi/ft 1.01 0.67 psi/ft 1.01
Segment 1
X1,000 Stage 13

Stage 12 Segment 2 X3,850

X1,500

Stage 11

X2,000
Stage 10 X3,900

Stage 9
X2,500
Segment 3
Stage 8 X3,950

X3,000 Stage 7

Stage 6 X4,000
X3,500
Stage 5

X4,000 Stage 4 X4,050

Segment 4
Stage 3
X4,500 Stress gradient
Stage 2
Low High
X5,000 Stage 1

> Segments, stages and clusters. Stresses typically change from one lithology to another. To prevent a fracture stage from crossing a lithology barrier,
engineers divide the well into segments of similar lithology. Stimulation stages (left, Track 9, green and light blue) should be contained within a segment,
and their lengths should be within prescribed minimum and maximum values. Engineers position the perforation clusters (Track 9, short horizontal lines to
the left and right of the fracture stages) based on preset design criteria: the number of clusters per stage, the minimum and maximum distance between
clusters and a minimum horizontal stress gradient (Track 2) tolerance of 0.01 psi/ft [0.23 kPa/m]. During completion design and modeling, these criteria may
need to be relaxed to account for the minimum horizontal stress variation. A close-up of the red box (right) from Track 2 shows the stress gradient ranges
from high (blue) to low (red). The original stress gradient logs were recorded every half foot (inset, Track 1) and smoothed using a 5-ft [1.5-m] moving
average algorithm (inset, Track 2) to account for imprecision during the perforating operation. (Adapted from Walker et al, reference 12.)

13. The rate of these stress variations within a few borehole
diameters of the wellbore, away from the immediate
influence of the borehole, is the wellbore-parallel stress
gradient and, for wells drilled parallel to the minimum
in situ principal stress direction, is equivalent to the
minimum stress gradient.
14. Walker et al, reference 12.
15. Wutherich K, Walker K, Aso I, Ajayi B and Cannon T:
“Evaluating an Engineered Completion Design in the
Marcellus Shale Using Microseismic Monitoring,” paper
SPE 159681, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
October 8–10, 2012.
16. Waters G and Zhao R: “Measuring the Impact of
Geomechanical Heterogeneity in Organic Shales on
Hydraulic Fracture Initiation and Propagation,”
paper CSUG/SPE 147597, presented at the Canadian
Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary,
November 15–17, 2011.

40 Oilfield Review
 Design Summary

Design Design 0 m 305

Average Perforation Proppant Pumping 0 ft 1,000
Completion Lateral Stage Clusters per Lateral, Rate,
Well Method Fluid Length, ft Stages Length, ft per Stage lbm/ft bbl/min N
Well 1 Nonengineered Slickwater 3,375 14 241 5 1,670 80
Well 2 Nonengineered Slickwater 2,312 7 330 5 1,220 80 Well C
Well 3 Nonengineered Slickwater 2,140 7 306 5 1,320 80
Well B
Average 2,609 9.3 292 5 1,400 80
Well 4 Engineered Slickwater 4,500 12 375 5 1,080 80 Well A
Well 5 Engineered Slickwater 3,950 12 329 4.5 1,230 80
Well 6 Engineered Slickwater 3,925 12 327 4.5 1,240 80
Average 4,125 12 344 4.7 1,180 80

Monitor well
Completion Summary 30-Day Cumulative Production

Normalized
Average Average Placed Percentage Normalized Normalized by Number of
Treating Treatment Proppant of Proppant by Lateral by Number Perforation
Pressure, Rate, per Lateral, Placed Gross, Length, of Stages, Clusters,
Well psi bbl/min lbm/ft Versus Design Mcf Mcf/ft Mcf/ft Mcf/cluster
Well 1 7,749 78.1 1,783 107.0% 63,194 18.7 4,514 903
Well 2 7,557 76.3 672 55.0% 42,396 18.3 6,057 1,211
Well 3 7,716 66.3 855 65.0% 65,039 30.4 9,291 1,858
Average 7,674 73.6 1,103 75.7% 56,876 21.8 6,094 1,219
Well 4 7,308 79.2 1,002 92.8% 212,631 47.3 17,719 3,544 > Well plan. From a single pad, Seneca
Well 5 7,105 81.9 1,251 101.7% 162,652 41.2 13,554 3,012 Resources drilled horizontal Wells A, B and C and
Well 6 7,298 82.3 1,245 100.5% 180,436 46.0 15,036 3,341 drilled a vertical monitor well for recording
Average 7,237 81.1 1,166 98.3% 185,240 44.9 15,437 3,308 stimulation-induced microseismicity. Well A was
completed following a geometric design and
Average
difference –437 7.6 63 22.7% 128,363 23.1 9,343 2,089 Wells B and C were completed according to
Percent average engineered completion designs. The disks on
difference –5.7% 10.3% 5.7% 30.0% 226% 106% 153% 171% each well, which represent perforation clusters,
are grouped into fracture stages with adjacent
> Summary of completion design and results. Data from six horizontal wells drilled into the Marcellus stages differentiated by color. (Adapted from
Shale illustrate the results of nonengineered and engineered completion methods (top). Wells 1 to 3 Wutherich et al, reference 15.)
were drilled and completed conventionally. Wells 4 to 6, which were drilled near Wells 1 to 3, were
completed using an engineered design method that specifies stage and perforation cluster placement.
The engineered completions were more effective than the nonengineered completions (bottom); the
success of the engineered completions is measured by lower treating pressures, higher pumping
rates, more efficient proppant placement and higher cumulative production after 30 days compared
with those in the nonengineered completions. (Adapted from Walker et al, reference 12.)

The company drilled three horizontal wells
into the same Marcellus Shale reservoir zone
from the same drilling pad. The laterals were
drilled parallel to one another, 800 ft [240 m]
apart and aligned to the northwest, in the direc-
tion of the regional minimum in situ principal
horizontal compressive stress (above right).
Well A, the base case, was completed using the
standard geometric method.15
Wells B and C were completed using the engi-
neered approach. The RST reservoir saturation
tool and Sonic Scanner acoustic scanning tool
were run along each lateral after casing had been
set to determine the extent of variation between
lithologic and mechanical properties and the
resolved stresses in the three wells.16 These mea-
surements were compiled and interpreted using
the Mangrove workflow software to produce an
engineered completion strategy for each well.
Although completion strategies were custom-
ized to optimize production from each well,
engineers kept a number of completion vari-
ables—fluid, proppant type and size and pump-
ing flow rate—the same and also kept the
number of stages, number of perforation clusters
per stage and amounts of proppant per length of
lateral similar for both wells. Nonetheless, some
variability existed across the three wells. By their
nature and because they are intended to account
for the rock and stress heterogeneity along the
wellbore, engineered completion designs inevita-
bly result in variable stage lengths, perforation
cluster spacings and pumping schedules.
To accommodate these variations and main-
tain the spirit of consistency, the company stag-
gered the timing of the well stimulations using a
zipper-fracture method, whereby plug and perfora-
tion operations followed by stimulation of stages
were rotated from one well to the next. As Well A
was being stimulated, Well C was undergoing plug-
ging and perforating. Then stimulation moved to
Well B, while plugging and perforating moved to
Well A. This process continued until stimulation of
all stages in all the wells was complete.
The stimulation engineering team analyzed
pilot study results by comparing treatment,
microseismicity and initial flowback data from
the geometrically designed completion in
Well A to similar data from the engineered
completions in Wells B and C. Because all of
the perforation clusters were engineered to be
located in wellbore intervals of relatively low
minimum principal stress, the average fracture
breakdown and treatment pressures were 7%

Summer 2013 41
 Design Summary

Design Design
Average Perforation Proppant Pumping
Completion Proppant Lateral Stage Clusters per Lateral, Rate,
Well Method Fluid Size Length, ft Stages Length, ft per Stage lbm/ft bbl/min
Well A Geometric Slickwater 40/70 5,312 18 295 3 1,650 90
Well B Engineered Slickwater 40/70 4,528 20 226 3.7 1,585 90
Well C Engineered Slickwater 40/70 4,998 20 250 3.9 1,675 90

Completion Summary Flowback Results

Average Average Average Placed Percentage

Breakdown Treating Treatment Proppant of Proppant Maximum Tubing
Pressure, Pressure, Rate, per Lateral, Placed Flow, Pressure,
Well psi psi bbl/min lbm/ft Versus Design Mcf/d/1,000 ft psi Choke, in.
Well A 5,572 7,277 69.7 1,122 68% 450 1,500 5/8
Well B 600 1,800 5/8
5,160 7,095 81.1 1,353 83%
Well C 640 1,800 5/8
Difference –412 –182 11.4 231 15% 170 300
Percent
difference –7% –3% 16% 21% 22% 38% 20%

> Summary of completion design and results. Of three horizontal wells drilled into the Marcellus Shale,
Well A, the reference case, was completed following a geometric design (top). Wells B and C were
completed according to engineered completion designs, which were more effective than the
geometric completion. Their relative success is measured by lower breakdown and treating
pressures, higher pumping rates, more effective proppant placement and higher flowback rates than
those of Well A (bottom). (Adapted from Wutherich et al, reference 15.)

and 3% lower and the average treatment rate
and amount of proppant placed were 16% and
22% higher in Wells B and C, respectively, than
in Well A. The treatment comparison indicated
that the engineered completions were more
effective than the geometric completion (above).
Initial gas flowback rates from Wells B and C
were 33% and 40% higher than the rates from
Well A on the same 5/8-in. choke size. In addition,
fracture-water flowback recovery from Wells B
and C was twice that from Well A. These flowback
data suggest that the wells stimulated by engi-
neered completions were making better reservoir
contact, leading to better production, than was
the geometrically completed well.
During the pilot study, the team placed a verti-
cal monitor well between Wells A and B; the well
was instrumented with geophones for monitoring
microseismicity induced by the stimulations in the
three wells. The StimMAP LIVE real-time micro-
seismic monitoring service recorded and analyzed
microseismicity. When compared with perforation
cluster locations, microseismic event locations
from the StimMAP LIVE service revealed that as
much as 35% of the perforation clusters in Well A,
with the geometric completion, were not contrib-
uting to the reservoir volume targeted for stimu-
lation. In contrast, microseismicity from the
engineered completions and stimulations in
Wells B and C showed improvement in the per-
centage of perforation clusters that contributed
to the stimulated reservoir volume—only 20% of
the perforation clusters made little to no contri-
bution (next page). The microseismicity compar-
ison indicated that the engineered completions
resulted in better placement of perforation clus-
ters than did the geometric completion.
The Mangrove workflow software not only pro-
duced the designs that led to these positive
results but also reduced completion design time
from several hours to about one hour per well.
Moreover, the software rationalized data han-
dling and procedural operations, which led to
fewer inaccuracies and improved perforation
placement. Seneca Resources continues to use
computer-aided completion design and micro-
seismic analysis on other wells in its fields.17
Stimulation of Tight Oil Sandstone
Conventional reservoirs are also candidates for
the application of the systematic, engineering
approach to reservoir stimulation. The
PetroChina Changqing Oilfield Company con-
ducted a pilot study using the engineered
approach for designing reservoir stimulation in a
conventional clastic reservoir.
The Ordos basin, in north-central China, is a
gentle monocline that dips stratigraphically
about 1° from east to west. Its fill, which consists
of sediments deposited during the Paleozoic,
Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras, thickens in the dip
direction with an average thickness of 4 to 5 km
[2.5 to 3.1 mi]. The Paleozoic sediments are
marine deposits that yield primarily natural gas,
while the Mesozoic sediments have a continental
origin and yield oil.18
17. Wutherich et al, reference 15.
18. For more on the Ordos basin: Yang Y, Li W and Ma L:
“Tectonic and Stratigraphic Controls of Hydrocarbon
Systems in the Ordos Basin: A Multicycle Cratonic
Basin in Central China,” AAPG Bulletin 89, no. 2
(February 2005): 255–269.

42 Oilfield Review
Well A

Event count 35 100

Event count
0 0

A B

100 200

Event count
Event count

0 0

C D

Well B

40 Stress gradient 40 Stress gradient

Event count

Event count

Low High Low High

0 0

A B

250 Stress gradient 40 Stress gradient

Event count

Event count

Low High Low High

0 0

C D

> Microseismicity comparison. Microseismicity resulting from four fracture stages in Well A (top) and Well B (bottom) indicate improved stimulations from
the engineered completions in Well B over the stimulations from the geometric completions in Well A. In each panel, the data show results from a fracture
stage; the disks along the colored well trace represent stimulated perforation clusters and the dots are induced microseismic event locations. To show
correlation, the disks and dots have the same color. Above the well trace, the height and color of the orange-to-green bars indicate the number of
microseismic events along each wellbore interval. Below the well trace on Well B, the minimum horizontal stress gradient is plotted; the amplitude and
color of the pink-to-blue shading specify the closure stress gradient level. The company placed perforation clusters based on engineering design principles
at locations with relatively low stress gradients. There is a better one-to-one correspondence between microseismicity and perforation locations in Well B
than in Well A, indicating improved perforation performance results from an engineered completion design. (Adapted from Wutherich et al, reference 15.)

Summer 2013 43
 300 m
300 m
250 m
500 m MW1
MW2
500 m
MW3
N
250 m
HW1
0 250
0 750
> Ordos basin, north-central China. A completions team conducted a pilot study to test engineered completion
designs from Mangrove software. The field test area (white box) is in southwest Ordos basin. The well layout (inset)
consists of two parallel horizontal production wells (HWs) and three vertical monitoring wells (MWs, blue circles)
constucted for recording microseismicity. The Chang 7 member of the Yanchang Formation was the target horizon.
(Adapted from Liu et al, reference 20.)
The Yanchang Formation is a thick sequence of
lake and delta sediments deposited during the
Late Triassic period. The formation consists of 10
lithologic members, named Chang 1 to Chang 10
from top to bottom. The members are stacks of
alternating mudstone, siltstone and sandstone lay-
ers that result in vertical heterogeneity. The reser-
voirs in the Yanchang Formation are naturally
fractured, low-permeability sandstones in which
porosity is typically about 10% and permeability is
generally 0.1 to 10 mD. The natural fractures occur
in two sets that tend to dip steeply and generally
strike in the ENE and NNW directions.19
To produce oil from these low-permeability
reservoirs, an operator must stimulate the pro-
duction intervals through multistage hydraulic
fracturing. Historically, most production wells
have been vertical, and after HF stimulation,
their initial production rates have varied from
5 to 8 m3/d [30 to 50 bbl/d]. In the few horizontal
wells, the initial production rates after HF stimu-
lation have averaged 32 m3/d [200 bbl/d]. While
still considered economic, these production rates
are only marginally acceptable. To improve the
production outcomes from its stimulation pro-
grams, the company partnered with Schlumberger
44
Ordos Basin
C H I N A
HW2
Basin
Gas field
500 m
1,500 ft
Oil field
in a pilot project to test the Mangrove workflow in
horizontal wells in a tight oil reservoir zone in the
southwest Ordos basin.20
The company drilled two 1,500-m [4,920-ft]
parallel horizontal wells in the Chang 7 member
of the Yanchang Formation. The wells, 600 m
[1,970 ft] apart, were drilled in the N15°W direc-
tion, which is parallel to the minimum in situ
principal horizontal stress direction in the Ordos
basin. The company drilled three vertical wells
500 m [1,640 ft] apart between and along a line
parallel to the horizontal wells; these vertical
wells were added for microseismicity monitoring
(MSM) during the fracture stimulations of the
horizontal wells (above).
The pilot study team constructed 3D geologic,
geomechanical and DFN models from the pilot
study well log data and from core descriptions
and geologic studies in the surrounding area
(next page). These models were calibrated using
data from the three monitoring wells and inte-
grated using the Mangrove system to form the
bases for modeling reservoir quality, completion
quality, stimulation staging and perforation
placement, hydraulic fracture stimulation design
and production performance forecasting.
Beijing
Xi’an
Shanghai
Se a
ina
Ch
uth
So
Optimal stimulation design requires that
each stage and its perforation clusters be placed
in wellbore intervals that have a high likelihood
of producing economic amounts of hydrocarbon
and breaking down by fracturing in response to
increased pressure during stimulation. These
wellbore intervals possess good RQ and good CQ.
The team used the Mangrove completion advisor
to select 18 stages per well.
In conjunction with the completion advisor,
the team used the UFM simulator to predict HF
propagation, growth and interaction with natural
fractures (NFs) in the reservoir. Depending on
the in situ stress direction and anisotropy in rela-
tion to the reservoir NF system, hydraulic frac-
tures may take advantage of the NFs to produce
19. For more on the Yanchang Formation: Lianbo Z and
Xiang-Yang L: “Fractures in Sandstone Reservoirs with
Ultra-Low Permeability: A Case Study of the Upper
Triassic Yanchang Formation in the Ordos Basin, China,”
AAPG Bulletin 93, no. 4 (April 2009): 461–477.
20. Liu H, Luo Y, Li X, Xu Y, Yang K, Mu L, Zhao W and Zhou S:
“Advanced Completion and Fracturing Techniques in
Tight Oil Reservoirs in Ordos Basin: A Workflow to
Maximize Well Potential,” paper SPE 158268, presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Texas, October 8–10, 2012.
Yang H, Xu YG, Yang KW, Zhou SX, Liu H and Luo Y:
“Optimized Treatment Design Shows Promise,” E&P 86,
no. 2 (February 2013): 46–50.
21. Weng et al, reference 9.
Oilfield Review
 MW1 MW2 MW3 MW1 MW2 MW3 HW2 HW1
Neutron Neutron Neutron 7
Porosity Porosity Porosity
Horizon Surface
Total Vertical
(left) (left) (left)
Depth, m

0 % 100 0 % 100 0 % 100 6

Bulk Density Bulk Density Bulk Density 5
Resistivity (right) Gamma Ray Resistivity (right) Gamma Ray Resistivity (right) Gamma Ray 4
7 ohm.m 617 1 g/cm3 2.85 0 gAPI 200 2 ohm.m 2,200 1 g/cm3 2.85 0 gAPI 200 3 ohm.m 1,700 1 g/cm3 2.85 0 gAPI 200
3
X,100
2

1
X,200

X,300

X,400
4

X,500

3
X,600
MW1

X,700
MW2
2
MW3
X,800
N
HW2
1 HW1

> Model building for Ordos basin wells. Because there were no seismic or geologic data for the location, model building started after well logs were
acquired from the three vertical monitor wells (left, MWs). Logs for each well display resistivity (Track 1), neutron porosity and bulk density (Track 2) and
gamma ray (Track 3). Geoscientists began model building by extracting geologic horizon surfaces based on well-to-well correlations between the
monitoring wells. Engineers used the surfaces for well placement guidance (top right) and for 3D model development (middle right) by upscaling
petrophysical properties derived from well log data and filling in between the wells while honoring the horizon surfaces. Geologists created a simple
discrete fracture network (DFN) model (bottom right) based on geologic studies and core descriptions. The DFN contained two dominant steeply dipping
fracture sets, characterized by average strike orientations of N75°E (cyan) and N15°W (purple) and average fracture spacing of 15 m [49 ft]. The DFN was
calibrated later and modified based on microseismicity data. (Adapted from Liu et al, reference 20.)

complex HF networks and, consequently, high
fracture surface area to make contact with the
reservoir. The production of complex HF net-
works is more likely when the in situ stress
anisotropy is low.21
During the UFM modeling, the team was also
concerned about determining how existing HFs
affected the behavior of subsequent HFs. After an
HF is created and filled with proppant, the imme-
diate vicinity of the HF changes forever. The HF
imposes a compressive stress component, or
stress shadow, that acts outward from the HF
plane in the minimum principal stress direction
It alters the local stress magnitude and anisot-
ropy near the fracture and affects adjacent frac-
tures through mechanical interactions. To
properly space HF stimulation staging, engineers
must include such stress shadow effects when
calculating CQ.
After selecting the stage and perforation loca-
tions, the team began to execute its design.
During stimulation operations, the team
employed the StimMAP LIVE real-time micro-
seismic monitoring (MSM) service. After each
stage, the team used MSM results to recalibrate
the 3D models, UFM model and stimulation
design. For the next stage, the engineers wanted
to maximize the HF surface area and proppant-
filled volume to obtain the best production from
the stimulated reservoir interval. MSM data sug-
gested that the HFs being created tended to be
long and contained within the targeted Chang 7
reservoir interval.
While monitoring the first five to six stages,
the team observed considerable overlap of micro-
seismicity from neighboring stages, indicating
suboptimal stage spacing. The team decided to

Summer 2013 45
 Rock Quality increase the spacing of stages and reduce the
Good RQ and good CQ number of stages from 18 to 13 per well (left).
Bad RQ and bad CQ After all 26 stages were stimulated in both
Bad RQ and good CQ horizontal wells, the operator put the wells into
Measured Depth, m

Good RQ and bad CQ

Stress Gradient production. Initial production rates were
Initial Updated 103.2 m3/d [649.1 bbl/d] and 124.5 m3/d

Good

Good

Composite
High Low

Bad

Bad
Stimulation Stimulation
Minimum Stress Stages Stages [783.1 bbl/d], a three- to fourfold improvement
Gamma Ray Gradient Perforation Perforation over the average production rate of 32 m3/d from
RQ CQ Cluster Cluster
0 gAPI 250 0 psi/m 0.30 previous horizontal wells. After three months, the
X,200 production rates from these wells stabilized and

Good

Good

GG
Stage 18 were 50% higher than the previous best production
Stage 13
from any horizontal well in the formation.
Bad Bad BB

Good Stage 17 Stimulation by Design

Good

GG
Unconventional reservoirs provide special chal-
X,400
Stage 12 lenges because they are heterogeneous reservoirs
Stage 16
composed of highly stratified sediments. Staying
within a reservoir zone during horizontal drilling is
Stage 15 difficult. Consequently, the wellbore intersects
Good

GG

variable lithologies, which exhibit dissimilar pet-

Good

Stage 11
X,600 Stage 14
rophysical and mechanical properties.
Unconventional reservoirs are also usually
Stage 13
anisotropic and naturally fractured. Shales pos-
Good GG Stage 12 Stage 10 sess layering caused by the horizontal alignment of
Good GG Stage 11
finely laminated sediments and platy clay miner-
X,800 als. This layering causes rock properties, such as
Good

Good

GG

Stage 10 permeability, elastic moduli and electrical resistiv-

Good GG Stage 9
ity, to be anisotropic.22 These properties may vary
Good Stage 9 more from layer to layer than within layers.
Natural fractures may cut across this layering and
Good

Y,000 Good GG Stage 8 superimpose additional anisotropy on the shales.

Stage 8
Both anisotropy and natural fractures complicate
Good the propagation of hydraulic fractures.23
Stage 7 Stage 7 Recent advances in multistage stimulation tech-
Good

GG

nology are making it possible to stimulate and

Stage 6 Stage 6 develop unconventional hydrocarbon resources
Good

Y,200
GG

more successfully (see “Multistage Stimulation in

Good

Stage 5 Stage 5 Liquid-Rich Unconventional Formations,” page 26).

Parallel advances in the Mangrove stimulation
design software are making it possible to design
Good

GG

Stage 4 Stage 4
completions that are more effective. Integration of
Y,400
Stage 3
the two technologies promises a positive future for
Stage 3
unconventional resource development. —RCNH
Stage 2 Stage 2
Good

Good

GG

22. For a discussion of permeability anisotropy: Ayan C,

Colley N, Cowan G, Ezekwe E, Wannell M, Goode P,
Stage 1 Stage 1 Halford F, Joseph J, Mongini A, Obondoko G and Pop J:
“Measuring Permeability Anisotropy: The Latest
Approach,” Oilfield Review 6, no. 4 (October 1994): 24–35.
Bad

Bad

BB

Y,600
For more on elastic anisotropy: Armstrong P, Ireson D,
Chmela B, Dodds K, Esmeroy C, Miller D, Hornby B,
> Completion advisor results. Engineers used the Mangrove completion advisor to compile and analyze Sayers C, Schoenberg M, Leaney S and Lynn H:
“The Promise of Elastic Anisotropy,” Oilfield Review 6,
petrophysical data to select fracture stages and perforation cluster locations for wells in the Ordos no. 4 (October 1994): 36–47.
basin. Gamma ray (Track 1) and the minimum horizontal stress gradient (Track 2) were key parameters For more on the anisotropy of electrical properties:
for the design. For the stress gradient profile, blue is high and red is low. Reservoir quality (Track 3), Anderson B, Bryant I, Lüling M, Spies B and Helbig K:
completion quality (Track 4) and composite (RQ plus CQ) quality scores (Track 5) provide color-coded “Oilfield Anisotropy: Its Origins and Electrical
quality indicators for stage and cluster selection. Initially, engineers proposed 18 stimulation stages Characteristics,” Oilfield Review 6, no. 4
(Track 6). After 5 stages were stimulated, engineers recalibrated the stimulation program using (October 1994): 48–56.
microseismic monitoring data and, as a result, reduced the number of stages to 13 (Track 7). The blue 23. Wu R, Kresse O, Weng X, Cohen C and Gu H: “Modeling
spikes (Tracks 6 and 7, left and right of stimulation stages) indicate proposed perforation cluster of Interaction of Hydraulic Fractures in Complex
Fracture Networks,” paper SPE 152052, presented at the
locations. (Adapted from Liu et al, reference 20.) SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference,
The Woodlands, Texas, February 6–8, 2012.

46 Oilfield Review