SPE 137441

Cement Technology Improves Fracture Initiation and Leads to Successful

Treatments in the Eagle Ford Shale
Neil Stegent, Lennox Leotaud, and Whitney Prospere, Halliburton, Christian Veillette, Enduring Resources

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Tight Gas Completions Conference held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2 –3 November 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of informati on 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 acknowledgme nt of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Stimulation-design considerations usually include things like formation-fracture gradient, reservoir pressure, stress, casing
size, perforation schemes, etc. The type of cement that fills the annular space between the openhole lateral and the casing is
not typically considered with regards to its impact on the execution of the frac treatment.
Early horizontal-well completions observed much higher injection pressures than those observed in vertical wellbores in
the same formation. Research identified the effects caused by transverse, oblique, or longitudinal fractures from horizontal
wellbores, which were usually nonissues in vertical completions. Near-wellbore (NWB) friction (tortuosity) is a component
that is common to both vertical and horizontal wellbores but seems to be ignored in horizontal completions. When proppant
cannot be placed during a horizontal frac, it is usually blamed on formation-fracture width (or lack of it) and proppant size
(mesh size is too large). These are the typical reasons used to explain early screenouts and have become commonplace in the
industry. The authors of this paper believe NWB tortuosity issues have a much larger impact than most think and will show
how a properly engineered production casing cement, in conjunction with the stimulation design, allows the placement of
large-mesh proppant at high concentrations in the Eagle Ford shale. High conductivity is essential for maintaining liquid-rich
production.
Fracture initiation in a horizontal well, especially at the toe, can sometimes be very difficult. To minimize injection issues,
acid-soluble cement (ASC) was placed in the lateral of several Eagle Ford-shale wells in Karnes County, Texas. Hybrid
stimulation treatments were used to place 20/40-mesh proppant at concentrations up to 4 lbm/gal, most without issue. Proper
engineering was used to successfully fracture stimulate all the intended intervals (including the first stage at the toe).
Utilization of ASC for horizontal completions can help improve stimulation efficiency and allow alternate onsite frac
options that can turn an otherwise-abandoned completion interval into a successfully stimulated section of the reservoir.

Introduction/Background
The Eagle Ford formation lies beneath the Austin Chalk play and extends laterally all across Texas from the southwest to the
northeast part of the state (Fig. 1).

Austin
Oil
Washington
High Liquids
Austin Houston
Gas Fayette
San
Antonio Colorado

GonzalesLavaca
Subject
Wilson
DeWitt
Well
Maverick Zavala Frio Atascosa Karnes

Goliad
Dimmit Bee
La Salle McMullen
Live Oak

Webb Duval
Corpus

Fig. 1—Illustrative map of Eagle Ford shale and subject well.

2 SPE 137441

Both formations can be characterized as mudstones and chalks that have been enriched with organic-carbon material. The
characteristics of the Eagle Ford formation change across the SW-NE strike of the play with regards to thickness, depth,
pressure gradients, total-organic content (TOC), mineralogy, and producing hydrocarbon type, to name a few.

Frac-Fluid Design
The subject well is located in Karnes County, Texas, in an area of the Eagle Ford shale that had the potential for liquid-
hydrocarbon production, so a hybrid stimulation design was selected for the treatment. This hybrid design would mimic a
successful design (Stegent et al. 2010) that had been implemented in an adjacent county. There was no vertical pilot hole on
the subject well, so no openhole logs were available; however, offset logs showed the formation was at a similar depth and
appeared to have similar attributes to the adjacent well. Good openhole-log data is preferred when designing a frac treatment,
but if it does not exist, then correlation to offset-well data is the only other option. Offset vertical-log data was analyzed (Fig.
2) and compared to another well (Fig. 3) in the area. The basic characteristics of the Eagle Ford formation were very similar
(depth, thickness of interval, ductile inorganic shales at the top and bottom of the formation, etc.).

Fig. 2—Offset vertical well to subject well. Fig. 3—Analysis of vertical well in DeWitt County, TX (Stegent
2010).

Hybrid stimulation designs allow the injection rate to be reduced, unlike a slickwater frac. This tends to keep the frac in the
pay zone, uses less fluid to place the proppant in the frac, does not have excessively high wellhead-injection pressures, and
uses less hydraulic horsepower. It provides for proppant transport and placement of proppant in the upper section of the
formation. Transporting the proppant farther from the wellbore increases the effective propped length. The lower injection rate
will tend to keep fracture height within the Eagle Ford pay zone while the higher viscosity provides more fracture width near
the wellbore to place higher proppant concentrations (Eq. 1). Fracture width is necessary to allow larger-mesh (20/40)
proppant to be placed in the fracture to compensate for the conductivity lost to embedment. Embedment tests were conducted
on an Eagle Ford shale with high-strength proppant at a closure pressure of 10,000 psi and showed an entire proppant grain of
embedment was possible with embedment depths that ranged from 0.33 to 0.75 mm (Fig. 4).

.............................................................................................. (1)
Eq. 1—Net-pressure equation showing viscosity and injection-rate influence on net pressure (Rock Mechanics for Fracturing 2002).

Embedment Core Tests

300 m 400 m 700 m

40/70
30/50
20/40

Fig. 4—Eagle Ford core embedment testing.

SPE 137441 3

Fracture-face damage is minimized by keeping the polymer loadings low and incorporating sufficient amounts of high-
temperature breakers in the fluid design. Viscous-gel damage to the formation requires fluid leakoff, and that’s of minimal
concern in this nanodarcy-perm reservoir. Less fluid volume (6,000 bbl per frac stage) is very common for a hybrid-fluid
system vs. a slickwater frac (15,000 bbl or more per frac stage). Production data in the Eagle Ford shale with high liquid
hydrocarbons appears to indicate a better correlation to stimulation treatments with increased proppant volume than to
treatments with high fluid volumes (Stegent et al. 2010), especially in the high-liquid-hydrocarbon areas.

Proppant
Because high liquid production was expected, larger-mesh proppants (30/50- and 20/40-mesh) were used. The primary reason
for placing larger proppant is to increase the conductivity in the main fracture (and any complex fracturing) to maintain the
multiphase flow during production, especially near the wellbore. Proppant embedment, proppant crushing, and formation-fines
migration are the major components that cause loss of conductivity over time. Proppant diagenesis can also degrade the
conductivity of a proppant pack over time and has a much larger effect on man-made materials at elevated temperatures
(Weaver et al. 2005). Resin coated proppant (RCP) was selected to reduce some of these effects, which will be discussed in
more detail:
• Proppant Embedment: Embedment testing on Eagle Ford core samples show embedment in the range of 300 to700
microns in depths of 0.30 to 0.75 mm. The width of a grain of 40/70-mesh proppant is ~300 microns wide, and the
width of a grain of 20/40-mesh proppant is ~700 microns wide. This indicates that low concentrations of small
proppant can be totally embedded into the formation (Fig. 5). Core tests show that the Brinell hardness number (Fig.
6) for the Eagle Ford shale is low (less than 30), which indicates the reservoir may tend to be more ductile also.

Fig. 5—Micrograph of a Haynesville shale/proppant interface.

Fig. 6—Brinell hardness of various shale reservoirs in North America. Data is a summary of core sample tests.
4 SPE 137441

• Proppant Crushing and Formation-Fines Migration: Formation-closure stress causes proppant to crush. Crushed-
proppant material can be released into the conductive proppant pack, which can then cause a reduction of
conductivity. The use of surface modifying agent (SMA) materials can reduce the migration of both formation and
proppant fines. Intuitively, one may assume that RCP could reduce some of the effect from crushing by distributing
the stress load between proppant grains across a larger surface area. This would tend to reduce the point-source stress
load on the proppant against the formation face as well as between the proppant grains (Fig. 7). Lab testing conducted
in 2004 (Dusterhoft et al.) demonstrated the benefits of using SMAs.

Fig. 7—Illustration of proppant-embedment stress and intergrain-stress effects.

• Proppant Diagenesis: This phenomenon was noticed in the mid-80s when RCPs were introduced to the industry.
During conductivity tests on RCPs (Penny 1987), it was noticed that there was not as much deformation to the
formation after a test using RCP compared to a man-made proppant (Fig. 8). It has more recently been observed that
a dissolution process occurs between the proppant and the formation (Weaver et al. 2005) which accelerates the
natural breakdown of the man-made materials. This leads to proppant degradation, loss of proppant strength (Fig. 9),
and loss of conductivity (Weaver et al. 2008). This effect is more severe at elevated temperatures and closure
pressures.

Fig. 8—Photographs that show the representative craters left by 20/40-mesh proppant embedded into Ohio sandstone at various
closure-stress and temperature conditions. Note the resin coating of proppant nearly eliminates embedment (from Penny 1987).
SPE 137441 5

Fig. 9—Results of mechanical strength of single proppant-grain testing using a Weibull statistical-analysis procedure. Bauxite
samples were tested before and after being subjected to closure stress and temperature for 2 to 6 weeks (from Weaver et al. 2008).

Completion Strategy and Design

Previous experience in the Dewitt/Karnes/Gonzales Counties area revealed that it could sometimes be very difficult to initiate
a fracture, especially on the first stage (at the toe). Most of the difficulty was caused by a combination of initiating a dominant
fracture and high NWB friction. Perforation schemes that adhered to the “perf-cluster length no more than 4 times the
diameter” principle discussed by El Rabaa (1998) (Fig. 10a) seemed to work the best with regards to establishing fracture-
injection rate. Multiple fractures in horizontal wellbores (Abbas et al. 1992, Fig. 10b) have been studied for some time, and
this was what the team wanted to avoid.
The initial injection rate in the Eagle Ford formation is sometimes less than designed, and NWB friction heavily
contributes to hamper injection during the frac. NWB friction had been measured with step-down injection tests (Hyden and
Stegent 1996) on other Eagle Ford stimulation treatments in the area that showed high NWB friction. Fig 11 illustrates the
severity of tortuosity from lab experiments. The challenge was to reduce the tortuosity in the wellbore area so the designed
volume (~290,000 lbm per stage) and concentration (3 to 4 lbm/gal) of proppant (20/40 mesh) could be placed. The team
wanted to come up with a way to minimize the effects of NWB friction and create sufficient fracture width (between the
casing and the formation) that would allow proppant to be placed while minimizing the risk of screen-out. It was also desired
to create a single dominant fracture at each perforation cluster for the same reason. Fracture complexity is a desired effect for
shale stimulation, but it needs to be accomplished in the far-field portion of the reservoir, not near the wellbore.

(a) (b)

Fig. 10—(a) Effect of perforated interval on fracture initiation and (b) multiple parallel fractures initiated from an open hole (from (a)
El-Rabaa 1998 and (b) Abass et al. 1992).
6 SPE 137441

Fig. 11—Examples of tortuosity in the laboratory with a vertical wellbore when perforations are oriented 45, 60, 75, and 90° from the
least-principal stress (σ min = 1,400 psi, σ max=2,500 psi, and σ overburden = 3,000 psi). As the perforation orientation (indicated in
the upper right-hand corner of each picture) was increased from 45 to 90°, multiple fractures became much more dominant to the
point that a multiwing planar fracture could not be established (90° example).

Acid-Soluble Cement
Acid-soluble cement (ASC) was initially designed for use in applications where lost circulation into producing zones might be
of concern. First uses were on wells with depleted reservoirs where whole losses of cement into production zones could have
resulted in permanent damage, as well as high injection pressures during stimulation. ASC provided an effective solution,
resulting in less potential formation damage because of an acid solubility of more than 90% with hydrochloric (HCl) acid.
The conventional approach in the Eagle Ford shale has been to drill horizontally to increase formation contact, thereby
increasing the production potential of the reservoir. When these horizontal sections have to be cemented, the use of
conventional cement can limit the amount of recoverable hydrocarbons from the reservoir because conventional cements may
contribute to more difficult fracture initiation. Because conventional cements have a low solubility in acid, perforations can be
difficult to break down and can inhibit fracture initiation and cause excess tortuosity during stimulation. Conventional high-
compressive-strength cements with a typical acid solubility of less than 5% may be very difficult to remove to allow each
perforation to openly communicate with the formation.
ASCs have been advocated for use in horizontal reservoirs as a means to reduce the rate of inefficient fracture initiations
(Willett et al. 2002). The use of ASC minimizes this effect because the ASC dissolves around the perforation cluster on
acidizing with HCl acid to produce conditions approaching that of an uncemented lateral or open hole, while leaving cement
between perforation clusters to provide annular isolation and wellbore stability. Near-wellbore fracture-complexity issues
experienced during the stimulation treatment can be addressed with a cementing program by using ASC (McDaniel et al. 1999,
Vulgamore et al. 2007).

What is ASC?
The ASC used on the subject well was a two-component system consisting of Portland cement and two different grades of
calcium carbonate (CaCO3). It can be mixed with standard mixing equipment at densities ranging from 13.0- to 16.4-lbm/gal.
Slurry-yield ratios can range from 3.55 ft³/sk to 2.00 ft³/sk. And it has a wide temperature range (below 150°F to over 300°F).
If the ASC will be used above 230°F, the cement will retrogress at some point. Therefore, if retrogression is a concern, lab
testing should be used to determine the required silica-sand concentration needed in the ASC design, keeping in mind that
silica sand will not be soluble in acid.
This type of cement has a fast solubility rate and is highly soluble (>90%) in acid-based stimulation fluids. ASC has
physical properties much like conventional cement. It can be specifically formulated to provide the proper weight, fluid loss,
free water, compressive strengths, and pump times required for particular well conditions.

Components of ASC
As mentioned above, the ASC used on the subject well was a two-component system consisting of Portland cement and two
different grades of CaCO3. The CaCO3 is fully soluble in a 15%-HCl solution, and because of its particle size, it provides an
effective bridge for fluid-loss control. The CaCO3 does not have a water requirement, but because of its specific gravity (2.70),
increasing the CaCO3 concentration in the ASC design (to gain increased acid solubility) will in turn cause an increase in the
overall density of the ASC slurry and a simultaneous increase in the water requirement of the slurry to compensate for the
increased density and aid in slurry mixability.
The ASC design can also be tailored to meet almost any criteria:
• Can be made gas-tight to help prevent gas migration issues.
• Can be made to have increased elasticity and durability for long-term zonal isolation.
• Can be made light enough to help ensure cement circulation across a loss zone or on top of a liner.
• Can be foamed using additives already commercially available for foaming Portland cements.
SPE 137441 7

Acid, Cement, and Calcium Carbonate Reaction

Acids can react with various components present in cement and cause severe damage to cement. The damage depends on the
cement type, acid type and concentration, temperature, pressure, and surface area. Acids attack concrete by dissolving both
hydrated and nonhydrated cement compounds, as well as calcareous compounds.
The principal compounds formed in the manufacture of conventional oilwell cements consists of a complex mixture of C 3S
(tri-calcium silicate) and C2S (di-calcium silicate) surrounded in a matrix of C3A (tri-calcium aluminate) and C4AF
(tetracalcium aluminoferrite). These components react with water to form hydrated products according to the following
example chemical equations for C3S (Eq. 2) and C2S (Eq. 3):

2(3CaO.SiO2) + 6H2O → 3CaO.2SiO2.3H2O (C-S-H) + 3Ca(OH)2 ...................................................... (2)

2(2CaO.SiO2) + 4H2O → 3CaO.2SiO2.3H2O + Ca(OH)2 .......................................................................................................... (3)

The calcium-silicate hydrate (C-S-H) is formed when cement hydrates and acts as the binder that gives set cement its
compressive strength. Set cement begins to dissolve in HCl acid because of the reaction between the acid and lime (Ca(OH)2).
The chemical reaction will result in the formation of calcium chloride, which is soluble in water (Eq. 4):

Ca(OH)2(s) + 2HCl(aq) → CaCl2(aq) + 2H2O ....................................................................................... (4)

This reaction essentially causes leaching of Ca(OH)2 from the set cement.
Gypsum (3CaSO4.2H2O) is added to cement during its manufacture to retard the C 3A (aluminate) hydration by forming a
product called ettringite. As Ca(OH)2 is leached out of the cement, the C-S-H and ettringite start to decompose, releasing Ca2+
to counteract the loss in Ca(OH)2, and the set cement starts to disintegrate, accelerating the dissolution (Luke and Soucy 2008).
Acids also react with other minerals present in cement. Iron, aluminum, silicon, and magnesium are some of the ions
detected in solution when acid reacts with cement. These minerals either leach or precipitate out because of various chemical
reactions (Nasr-El-Din et al. 2007).
The addition of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), which is an acid-soluble component, to conventional cement further increases
the conventional cement’s solubility in acid.
Hydrogen ions are generally depicted by the following symbol: H +; they react with carbonates as shown in Eq. 5:

2H+ + CaCO3 → Ca++ + H2O + CO2

Hydrogen Ion + Limestone = Calcium Ion + Water + Carbon Dioxide ................................................. (5)

The basic reaction between hydrochloric acid and CaCO3 is shown in Eq. 6:

2HCl + CaCO3 → CaCl2 + H2O + CO2 .................................................................................................................................................... (6)

The carbonate dissolves rapidly in acid, increasing the permeability of the set cement, which allows the acid to penetrate
further into the set cement and aid in disintegration and dissolution. Some of the carbonate also reacts with C-S-H and
ettringite structures, further increasing the acid solubility of these compounds.
Luke and Soucy (2008) also showed that a low CaCO3 concentration in a conventional-cement design will translate into a
low acid solubility of the set cement and high compressive strength. And a high CaCO 3 concentration will translate into high
acid solubility and low compressive strength of the set cement.

How Solubility of the ASC is Tested

Although there are a number of published papers on testing the solubility of set cement in acid, there is no standard test
method to determine ASC solubility. The method used to test the ASC design used on the subject well was developed by the
cement contractor for the well and consisted of placing the set specimen (ASC) in a beaker of acid containing a magnetic stir
bar. The beaker was then placed on a hot plate/magnetic stir plate. The weight loss of the set cement was determined after a
specific time period. This test method could produce results variations, depending on several factors:
• The specific test time and temperature of cure.
• How the test specimen is stored after removal from the mold (water bath or air dry).
• The length of time between removing from the mold and performing the acid-solubility test.
• The type and concentration of acid used.
• Whether the acid solution is agitated or left static.
• The temperature of acid used.

Therefore, it is extremely important that each lab and individual is knowledgeable of and uses one specific procedure for
performing the acid-solubility test to maintain consistency.
8 SPE 137441

The test method used by the cement contractor for the subject well is especially useful in evaluation of ASC specimens and
is outlined below:
1. Obtain the equipment required for the test: beaker, hot plate/magnetic stir plate, magnetic stir bar, cube support stand,
and 15% HCl-acid solution.
2. Obtain a set specimen of the material to be tested (ASC). After removing a set specimen from the mold, it should be
kept in water at either room temperature or the temperature at which the test is to be performed.
3. Place the beaker on the magnetic stir plate. The stir plate must also have heating capabilities.
4. Place the magnetic stir bar in the beaker.
5. Place a support stand in the beaker above the stir bar.
6. Remove the specimen from the water, blot it dry, and weigh it. Then place the specimen on the support stand.
7. Pour the 15% acid solution into the beaker. Start timing as soon as the acid is poured over the cement. Stirring should
also be started, and heating if applicable.
8. At various intervals, remove the specimen, blot the acid from it, and obtain a new weight.
9. The acid is not changed during the test.
10. The solubility is calculated by Eq. 7:

S% = 100 × (1 − Wt ÷ Wi) ..................................................................................................................... (7)

Where:
S% = Solubility in percent
Wt = Sample weight at time
Wi = Initial specimen weight
100 = Factor to convert to percent

Figs. 12 through 14 show conventional- and ASC-specimen samples before and after the above acid-solubility test method
was performed.

Fig. 12—Conventional cement-specimen sample. Fig. 13—ASC-specimen sample.

Fig. 14—Conventional cement- and ASC-specimen samples after a 30-min reaction time. The conventional cement was 5% soluble
and the ASC was 92% soluble in 15% HCl acid.

Inorganic acids, such as HCl acid, have shown to give better solubility results than organic acids, such as acetic acid. The
acid typically used on fracturing jobs in the Eagle Ford formation is 15% HCl acid. A test was done to determine the effect of
varying the concentration and type of acid on set-cement solubility. Table 1 lists the results of this test and shows that
SPE 137441 9

increasing the HCl-acid concentration increases the solubility of the cement as expected, with 15% HCl acid giving the fastest
dissolution time. Acetic acid is a weak acid, and this is clearly seen by the minimal solubility.

TABLE 1: SET CEMENT SOLUBILITY IN ACID/TIME TO DISSOLVE 20.0 g CEMENT

SHAVINGS CLASS G CEMENT DESIGN WITH 125% BWOC CACO3
Type of acid Dissolution time, min Comments
12% Acetic
See comments After 48 hr, 50% dissolved
acid
7.5% HCl acid 9
15% HCl acid 4

Little published literature is available that relates lab testing of ASC to what actually happens in the downhole
environment. Luke and Soucy (2008) published great work on the results of dynamic acid-solubility testing they conducted.
Their test method incorporated a small-scale wellbore design that consisted of a production casing and tubing typical of lateral
wells cemented with ASC, a pump, valves, flow loop, 15% HCl-acid solution, a cured mold of ASC between the production
casing and outer mold, and perforations made to represent downhole perforations through the casing. The results of the
dynamic testing proved that the higher the % solubility of the acid-soluble cement, the faster and greater the dissolution of the
ASC downhole, which translated into the lowest fracture-initiation pressures. The results from the test also showed that
isolation is maintained in the laterals between the perforations by the ASC after acid treatment through the perforations.

Lab-testing Considerations for ASC

The lab testing of ASC should follow the same testing methodology or guidelines for conventional oilwell cements as outlined
in ANSI/API RP 10B-2and ISO 10426-2. Special consideration should be given to ensuring slurry stability because of the
settling tendency of the calcium carbonate resulting from its high concentration in the ASC design, and no free fluid because
of the higher slurry-water requirement. It is well known that in high-angle/horizontal wellbores, the high side of the hole could
be susceptible to free-water breakout if the cement slurry is not properly designed and tested in the laboratory and properly
mixed on location. A channel formed from free fluid could result in primary-cement failure and could limit the effectiveness of
the stimulation treatment.
The following points should be considered when testing an ASC in the laboratory:
• The ASC design should possess zero free water. Free-water test procedures, as outlined in API RP 10-B, should be
followed. The slurry is conditioned in a HPHT consistometer to the API BHCT before being transferred to a
graduated cylinder for measurement of free fluid. After the slurry has been conditioned for a satisfactory period at
BHCT and BHP, the slurry is transferred to a graduated cylinder and the free-water test is measured over a 2-hr
period. The graduated cylinder is placed in a preheated chamber and is tilted to simulate wellbore deviation. After the
2-hr test period, the results of the measurement of free fluid are reported as a percent free fluid. Both free fluid and
particle sedimentation are measured to determine cement-sheath quality. Measured free water is part of a test to
determine the stability of static slurry at BHCT using the anticipated wellbore conditions.
• The cementing process should begin with the determination of BHSTs and BHCTs. For horizontal wellbores, the best
source for this information is local temperature information/offset-well temperature data. BHCT can also be
determined from advanced temperature-simulating software.
• Fluid loss should be less than 100 cc in 30 min, especially on slimhole jobs, to prevent excessive filtrate loss from the
ASC and potential bridging off.
• The ASC design should exhibit no settling tendencies. The best recommendation to determine slurry stability is to
perform a well-simulation slurry-stability test (e.g., BP settlement test) in an effort to detect any settling tendencies. 6
and 3 Fann 35 viscometer readings should be minimum 10.
• Thickening-time determinations should use a 10-min or anticipated shut down to simulate dropping the plug and
washing up pumps and lines. Refer to local thickening-time guidelines for calculations on determining appropriate
target windows.
• Compressive-strength values should be less than 1,000 psi and greater than 500 psi in 24 hr at BHST.
• Avoid using any acid-insoluble material, such as fibers, gilsonite, or other materials that lower acid solubility and add
particulates that can limit fracture initiation.
• Compatibility tests between spacers, flushes, cement slurries, and drilling fluids should be performed in accordance
with local procedures and/or API RP 10-B.

On the subject well this paper discusses, the pumping schedule for the ASC job consisted of a 14-lbm/gal tuned-rheology
spacer, followed by a 16.2-lbm/gal conventional lead cement, 16.2-lbm/gal ASC, and then finally the displacing fluid. For the
tuned-rheology spacer, wettability and rheology-compatibility testing was performed with the 13.5-lbm/gal oil-based mud
(OBM) to obtain a surfactant package and spacer that had adequate water-wetting ability, reduced interface viscosity, and had
good interface solids-suspension ability. Standard tests were performed on the 16.2-lbm/gal lead cement slurry to ensure the
slurry design was stable at bottomhole temperature and that it had a low fluid-loss value, 0 % free fluid, and long zero-gel time
10 SPE 137441

to help prevent gas migration. The total thickening time of the 16.2-lbm/gal lead slurry was 11:47 (hr:min) to 70 Bc, and the
UCA compressive-strength value was 3,484 psi at the end of 48 hr.
The 16.2-lbm/gal ASC consisted of a typical design used at the time. The CaCO 3 concentration in the blend was 150%
BWOC, and the blend also contained sufficient suspension additives to help prevent thermal thinning and provide suspension
of the CaCO3 at BHCT.
Pilot-test results (Table 2) showed the design to have 0 % free fluid, low fluid loss, and a UCA compressive strength of
1,227 psi at the end of 48 hr. The UCA compressive-strength result for the bulk-plant sample (Table 2) at the end of 48 hr was
lower (656 psi) than the compressive strength recorded on the pilot test because of the higher retarder concentration used to
attain the total thickening time of 09:28 (hr:min). The solubility of the 16.2-lbm/gal ASC design was 95% after a reaction time
of 25 min, and this test was conducted using the heating/magnetic stir-plate procedure mentioned above.

TABLE 2: PILOT AND BULK-PLANT SAMPLE LAB-TEST RESULTS FOR ASC

Pilot Test Results
Acid Solubility
Acid Reaction Initial Final Solubility,
Temp, °F Acid Type Conc.,% Time Weight, g Weight, g %
80 HCl 15 0:25 257 13 95
Comment: The acid-solubility test was performed without retarder in the cement design.
UCA Compressive Strength
End 48-hr CS, End CS, End Time,
Temp, °F Pressure, psi psi psi hr
319 3,000 1,227 1,227 48
Thickening Time
Temp, °F Pressure, psi 70 Bc, hh:mm
319 9,587 05:23
Stirring Fluid Loss
Heating Time,
Temp, °F min cc/30, min
319 31 62
Mixability (0 to 5)—0 is not Mixable
Mixability Rating (0 to 5)
4
Free Water
Test
Temp, °F % FW 45 Inc
180 0
Bulk-Plant Sample-Test Results
UCA Compressive Strength

End 48-hr CS, End CS, End Time,

Temp, °F Pressure, psi psi psi hr
340 3,000 656 656 48
Thickening Time
Temp, °F Pressure, psi 70 Bc, hh:mm
312 11,306 09:28

Cementing Job Procedure and Best Practices used on the Subject Well
Field experience suggests that in deviated wells, solids settling from the drilling fluid to the low side of the hole can adversely
affect mud displacement while cementing.
Deposits from settled, drilled solids or weighted drilling fluid can cause high- and low-side communication channels in
wells. These channels are the major cause of failure during cementing jobs in deviated wellbores. However, well operators can
successfully cement horizontal or high-angle wellbores by following procedures that help eliminate communication channels.
Focus should be placed on (1) drilling-fluid properties, (2) cement-slurry design, (3) spacers design and contact time, and (4)
flow rates. The use of dynamic hydraulic-cementing simulation software can help predict the fluid-flow profile during the
cement job and help validate the use of best practices like (1) pipe movement, (2) establishing proper casing centralization, (3)
cementing in multiple stages, (4) and casing vs. hole size (annular cement-sheath thickness)
The subject well was originally drilled into the Lower Cretaceous Edwards formation to a total MD of 16,258 ft. The
Edwards lateral was abandoned after completion operations because of an unsuccessful well test and produced water. The well
was then repermitted for the Eagle Ford shale play. While drilling the Eagle Ford lateral section, the drillstring became stuck
and the BHA and some drillpipe were left in the hole. Whipstock #3 was set, and a 6-in. lateral hole was redrilled to 16,577 ft
MD/13,209 ft TVD with 13.5-lbm/gal OBM. The wellbore geometry of the subject well is shown in Fig. 15.
SPE 137441 11

Fig. 15—Subject well, wellbore geometry.

The BHST at TD was 340°F and the BHCT was 313°F. These temperatures were calculated from offset-well data in the
field, and the BHCT was also compared to the circulating temperature recorded by the temperature sensor on the
measurement-while-drilling (MWD) tool on short trips. Although the practice of using the MWD tool for BHCT prediction on
cementing jobs is not oil-industry recommended, the practice has often been used in the Eagle Ford formation; as the MWD
temperature is usually 10 to 20°F higher than the temperature calculated from a recommended temperature simulator, it’s often
used as an added safety factor. The 6-in. open hole was not logged, as is the practice in the Eagle Ford formation, but a
cement-volume percentage excess of 15% was used from offset-well data to calculate cement volumes. The planned TOC was
11,500 ft. The estimated pore pressure at 13,209 ft TVD was 11.6-lbm/gal, and the fracture gradient was 16-lbm/gal. The
production casing string was 5 ½ in. crossed over to 4 ½ in. in the openhole section. Even though a large window existed
between the pore pressure and fracture gradient, high ECDs were expected for the cement job because of the tight annular
clearance between the 4 ½-in. casing and 6-in. open hole. Dynamic hydraulic-simulation software was used to optimize pump
rates and fluid rheologies for maximum mud displacement on the cement job. Using the simulator results, it was decided to
cement the well with 25 bbl of 14-lbm/gal tuned-rheology spacer, incorporating suitable surfactants for OBM compatibility,
followed by 34 bbl of 16.2-lbm/gal conventional lead cement slurry and 59 bbl of 16.2-lbm/gal ASC to be pumped in the well
at a rate of 2.5 bbl/min. Both the conventional cement and ASC incorporated a delayed-gel-strength antigas-migration
additive, as the simulation predicted a moderate gas-flow potential condition might exist upon cement job completion.
After the 5 ½-in. × 4 ½-in. production casing was run to TD, circulation was established to condition the 13.5-lbm/gal
OBM at a maximum rate of 2.5 bbl/min and full returns over the shakers. The tuned-rheology spacer was prepared in a batch
blender, and the conventional lead cement and ASC were mixed and pumped on-the-fly at 2.5 bbl/min. The top latch-in wiper
plug was then dropped and the cement was displaced with 40 bbl clay-control material/sugar water followed by 11.3-lbm/gal
calcium-chloride brine at 2.5 bbl/min. After pumping 300 bbl of displacement, the circulating pressure had reached 11,278 psi,
at which point the decision was made to abort the cement-displacement operation because of high pressure, 15 bbl short of
calculated displacement and leaving 800 ft of cement in the pipe above the float collar. Full mud returns were reported for the
entire cement job. The actual real-time job chart is shown in Fig. 16. Coiled tubing (CT) was used to drill out excess cement,
and then the CT string was used to deploy tubing conveyed perforating (TCP) to perforate the section closest to the toe.
The steps used in the execution of this cement job on location are the same steps used on any other cement job in the Eagle
Ford formation, highlighting the fact that no special procedures or considerations are required for execution of an ASC design.
12 SPE 137441

Fig. 16—Subject well recording of ASC job.

Examples of Stimulation Job Execution and Onsite Redesign

Example 1: Stage 1–Job Execution (Subject Well GU #1-1X)

The toe of a horizontal well is typically the most difficult to frac (many theories exist as to why), and this example wellbore
was no exception (Fig. 17). Initially, the wellbore was loaded with a 10-cP linear gel at 5 bbl/min. After verifying the
formation was broken down and injection was established, 3,000 gal of 15% HCl acid was pumped in an effort to establish a
good fracture and alleviate all perforation and tortuosity (NWB) friction. The 15% HCl acid was followed by 2,000 gal of
crosslinked borate frac fluid, which was displaced to the perforations by 10-cP linear gel. The team was looking for a pressure
response (positive or negative) that would indicate whether or not the designed pumping schedule could be followed. If not,
the treatment would need to be redesigned and adjusted on-the-fly.
The formation experienced a pressure drop when acid entered the perforations and the decision was made to increase the
pump rate in 1 to 2 bbl/min increments, as pressure allowed. The pump rate was increased from 10 to 26 bbl/min as the
crosslinked borate entered the perforations. Several proppant slugs were pumped (in crosslinked fluid) to remove any residual
NWB friction and potentially open up additional perf clusters. Alternating between 10-cP linear gel and crosslinked fluid with
30/50-mesh proppant, three proppant slugs were pumped, which were between 0.25 and 0.5 lbm/gal. Each time the proppant
reached the perforations, the pressure would increase by 100 to 300 psi (adjusting for hydrostatic and friction pressure). The
injection rate was 25 bbl/min at 10,400 psi, and it was decided to pump 4,000 gal of 15% HCl acid.
The rate was slowed to less than 20 bbl/min (to pull acid from the tanks) and was displaced with 15-cP linear gel at 22
bbl/min, 10,300 psi. When the acid entered the perforations, the treating pressure decreased by ~700 psi. It was thought that
the ASC was helping with this pressure decrease, as previous attempts to pump acid at this stage of a job were unsuccessful on
other completions in the area. The rate was gradually increased, and it was decided to pump a 35-lbm crosslinked-fluid spacer
followed with a 0.5-lbm/gal 30/50-mesh proppant slug. The 0.5-lbm/gal proppant slug entered the perforations at 29 bbl/min,
10,200 psi, and a 150-psi pressure decrease was observed. It was obvious that additional NWB friction was being reduced.
This response allowed the designed treatment schedule to be pumped, with adjustments made on-the-fly as needed. The rate
was gradually increased during the job as the wellhead pressure decreased, until 50 bbl/min, 9,450 psi, was achieved (during
the 2.5-lbm/gal stage). A sudden pressure increase occurred during the 2.75-lbm/gal stage, so the proppant was cut and flush
was started. The wellbore was successfully flushed to the perforations and had an additional 20 bbl of overflush with 5-cP
linear gel. It was believed the pressure spike at the end of the job could have been caused by the interference of the abandoned
parallel openhole wellbore.
SPE 137441 13

Fig. 17—Stage 1—Treatment plot, subject well #1-1X.

Example 2: Stage 2–Job Execution Redesigned (Subject Well GU #1-1X)

A plug-and-perf completion uses flow-through frac plugs for isolation between frac stages. The perforating guns and frac plug
are pumped down the lateral wellbore on wireline to the location of the next completion interval. The plug is set and the
perforation guns are then discharged in the designated frac interval. After the wireline has retrieved the spent perforating guns,
a ball is released into the wellbore and allowed to free fall while the surface equipment and wellhead are pressure tested for the
safety of all personnel on location. At the beginning of the frac stage, the ball is pumped down the lateral until it seats on the
frac plug. This isolates the new treatment stage from the previous frac treatment.
10-cP linear gel was used to pump down the ball and seat it on the bridge plug (Fig. 18). A positive pressure indication was
observed and the formation broke down at 8,375 psi. After the breakdown, the following redesigned fracture-extension fluid
schedule was pumped:
1. 2,000 gal of 15% HCl acid.
2. 5,000 gal of crosslinked 35-lbm borate gel.
3. 3,000 gal of 15% HCl acid.
4. 4,000 gal of crosslinked 35-lbm borate gel.
5. Displace with 10-cP linear gel to observe reservoir-pressure response.

The pump rate was gradually increased in 3-bbl/min increments during the displacement until 40 bbl/min was achieved.
Each time the combination of acid/crosslinked fluid entered the perforations, a pressure decrease was observed (estimated at
over 1,000 psi on most frac stages). A step-down/ISIP was discussed, but it was early in the completion of the well and data
gathering had to wait until Stage 6 (Fig. 19). Multiple 30/50-mesh proppant slugs were pumped and minimal pressure response
was observed. The main proppant schedule was pumped as designed, stair-stepping up the concentration from 0.75 to 1.5
lbm/gal premium white 30/50-mesh proppant, 1 to 2.5 lbm/gal premium white 20/40-mesh proppant, and 2.5 to 3.25 lbm/gal
premium RCP 20/40-mesh proppant. Stage 2 was pumped to completion and the wellbore was flushed with 10-cP linear gel.
This treatment schedule was used as a template to model and successfully stimulate the remainder of the treatments.
14 SPE 137441

Fig. 18—Subject well GU #1-1X Stage 2 treatment plot.

Fig. 19—NWB friction calculation after acid (Stage 6).

Example 3: Stage 3–Obvious Effect of Acid/Crosslinked Initiation Schedule

The wellbore was loaded with a 10-cP linear gel at 10 bbl/min. and the Stage 2 schedule was followed for Stage 3. The first
combination of 2,000 gal 15% HCl acid and 5,000 gal crosslinked 35-lbm borate gel caused a 1,900-psi decrease in the
treating pressure when the fluid systems entered the formation (Fig. 20). The second combination of 3,000 gal 15% HCl acid
and 4,000 gal crosslinked 35-lbm borate gel caused a 1,225-psi decrease in the treating pressure. The design pump rate was
quickly achieved so the designed treatment schedule could be pumped and a minimal amount of on-the-fly corrections were
needed. It is believed that the ASC allowed the acid to “remove” the cement in the near-wellbore area, which decreased the
entry friction pressures (perforation and tortuosity) that can adversely affect the ability to achieve the design pump rate and
proppant concentration. This treatment had no issues accepting 3.5-lbm/gal proppant.

Example 4: Offset without ASC

Previous stimulation treatments in the northeast end of the Eagle Ford shale play did not typically experience a significant
pressure decrease from acid. Crosslinked fluid seems to work better to open up perforations and remove near wellbore friction,
but proppant slugs would tend to cause a pressure increase (instead of a decrease). These pressure increases cause operators to
proceed with caution during the proppant-pumping stages of the job to avoid an early screenout. Pumping more fluid at lower
SPE 137441 15

proppant concentrations lengthens the total job time, and the treating pressure usually begins a gradual pressure increase
during the 2-lbm/gal stage of the job (Fig. 21).

Fig. 20—Subject well GU #1-1X Stage 3 treatment plot—large pressure decline with 15% acid on formation (ASC in annulus).

Fig. 21—Example of treatment data for conventional cemented wellbore with no break when acid hits formation.
16 SPE 137441

Summary of Completions on Subject Well

A comparison between the subject well (with ASC) and an offset well (without ASC) was performed to determine the amount
of hydraulic horsepower (HHP) required (Fig. 22). The wells were very similar (similar depths (13,500-ft TVD), BHP, frac
gradient, etc.) and the average pump rate for both wells was ~40 bbl/min (Fig. 23). The subject well required about 500 HHP
less per frac stage and the design injection rate was obtained on all stages.

Fig. 22—Reduced HHP with ASC vs. conventional cement in horizontal wellbore.

Fig. 23–Cumulative frequency plot of injection rates from subject well and offset.

Conclusions
• ASC technology can help reduce NWB tortuosity in cemented horizontal wellbores.
• Reducing NWB friction early in the treatment can help to achieve the desired injection rate.
• Wellhead injection pressures are lower in horizontal wellbores with ASC in the lateral section than offset wells with
conventional high-compressive-strength cement.
• The ability to place high concentrations of larger-mesh proppants is improved by the use of ASC.
• Fracture isolation is obtained because sufficient compressive strength is developed, even with high solubility versions
of ASC; for example, 95% acid solubility can still have over 1,000 psi compressive strength.
• A combination of alternating acid with crosslinked-gel stages during breakdown/fracture extension worked better to
establish connectivity between the wellbore and the formation than just pumping acid followed by proppant slugs.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Enduring Resources for testing ASC on their completions and sharing the results. The authors also thank
the Halliburton South Texas frac crew and engineering staff for their patience with all of the onsite design changes during the
pumping of these treatments.
SPE 137441 17

Nomenclature
v = Poisons’ ratio
Proportional to
H = fracture height, L
KIc-app = Fracture-tip effect or fracture toughness
w = Fracture width
Q = Frac rate, bbl/min
= Fluid viscosity, M/LT
xf = Hydraulic fracture wing or half-length, L
E = Young's modulus
E' = Plane strain modulus (= E/1- 2)

References
Abass, H.H., Hedayati, S. and Meadows, D.L. 1992. Non-Planar Fracture Propagation From a Horizontal Wellbore: Experimental Study.
Paper SPE 24823 presented at the Annual Technical Meeting of SPE, Washington DC, October 4–7. DOI: 10.2118/24823-PA.
Dusterhoft, R., Nguyen, P. and Conway, M. 2004. Maximizing Effective Proppant Permeability under High-Stress, High Gas-Rate
Conditions. Paper SPE 90398 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 26–29 September.
DOI: 10.2118/90398-MS.
El Rabaa, W. 1998. Experimental Study of Hydraulic Fracture Geometry Initiated From Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE 19720 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 9–1, October. DOI: 10.2118/19720-MS.
Hyden, R.E. and Stegent, N.A. 1996. Pump-in/Shutdown Tests Key to Finding Near-Wellbore Restrictions. Paper SPE 35194 presented at
the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, 27–29 March. DOI: 10.2118/35194-MS.
Luke, K. and Soucy, K. 2008. Test Method to Optimize Acid-Soluble Cement For Unconventional Gas Completions. Paper SPE 114759
presented at the CIPC/SPE Gas Technology Symposium Joint Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 16–19 June. DOI:
10.2118/114759-MS.
McDaniel, B.W., Willett, R.M., and Underwood, P.J. 1999. Limited-Entry Frac Application on Long Intervals of Highly Deviated or
Horizontal Wells., Paper SPE 56780 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition in Houston, TX, 3-6
October.DOI: 10.20118/56780-MS.
Nasr-El-Din, H.A., Al-Yami, A., Al-Aamri, A. and El-Marsafawi, Y. 2007. A Study of Acid Cement Reactions Using the Rotating Disk
Apparatus. Paper SPE 106443, presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas, 28 February–2
March. DOI: 10.2118/106443-MS.
Penny, G.S. 1987. An Evaluation of the Effects of Environmental Conditions and Fracturing Fluids Upon the Long-Term Conductivity of
Proppants. Paper SPE 16900 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 27–30 September. DOI:
10.2118/16900-MS.
Rock Mechanics for Fracturing. Frac Tips. (January 2002) 1–2.
Stegent, N., Wagner, A., Mullen, J. and Borstmayer, R. 2010. Engineering a Successful Fracture Stimulation Treatment in the Eagle Ford
Shale. Paper SPE 136183 presented at the SPE Tight Gas Completions Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 2–3 November.
Vulgamore, T., Clawson, T., Pope, C., Wolhart, S., Mayerhofer, M., Machavoe, S. and Watman, C. 2007. Applying Hydraulic Fracture
Diagnostics to Optimize Stimulations in the Woodford Shale. Paper SPE 110029 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, 11–14 November. DOI: 10.2118/110029-MS.
Weaver, J.D., Nguyen, P.D., Parker, M.A. and van Batenburg, D. 2005. Sustaining Fracture Conductivity. Paper SPE 94666 presented at the
SPE European Formation Damage Conference, Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 25–27 May. DOI: 10.2118/94666-MS.
Weaver, J.D., Rickman, R. and Luo, H. 2008. Fracture Conductivity Loss Due to Geochemical Interactions Between Man-Made Proppants
and Formations. Paper SPE 118174 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional/AAPG Eastern Section Joint Meeting, Pittsburg,
Pennsylvania, 11–15 October. DOI: 10.2118/118174-MS.
Willett, R.D, Borgen, K.L.,. McDaniel, B.W., and Michie, E. 2002. Effective Well Planning and Stimulation Improves Economics of
Horizontal Wells in a Low-Permeability West Texas Carbonate. Paper SPE 77932 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Melborne, Australia, 8-10 October.