Downloaded 11/05/14 to 155.198.30.43. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.

org/

URTeC: 1923095

Design and Execution of a Holistic Data Acquisition Program and

Data Evaluation for Utica Shale
Bunyamin Can1, Conny Gilbert1, Libny Leal1, Stuart Hirsch1, Jacob Rosenzweig1,
Nathan Huber1, Seth Rudolph1, Nathaniel Smith1, Matt Honarpour2, Nagi Nagarajan1,
Daniel Xia1
1
Hess Corporation, Houston, TX
2
Currently with BHP Billiton, Houston, TX
Copyright 2014, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) DOI 10.15530/urtec-2014-1923095

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 25-27 August 2014.

The URTeC Technical Program Committee accepted this presentation on the basis of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). The contents of this paper
have not been reviewed by URTeC and URTeC does not warrant the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information herein. All information is the responsibility of, and, is
subject to corrections by the author(s). Any person or entity that relies on any information obtained from this paper does s o at their own risk. The information herein does not
necessarily reflect any position of URTeC. Any reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of URTeC is prohibited.

Abstract

The Utica-Point Pleasant shale reservoir, an organic rich middle to late Ordovician deposit in eastern Ohio, is one of
the more recent unconventional reservoirs to be appraised for development. Similar to other shale plays, the Utica-
Point Pleasant formation presents formidable challenges for characterization and exploitation due to its high degree
of reservoir heterogeneity and the presence of a wide range of hydrocarbon fluids from dry gas to retrograde
condensate and oil.

This paper presents a case study covering the implementation of a well pad specific, holistic, data gathering and
evaluation program aimed at improving the understanding of reservoir and in situ fluid properties, completion
effectiveness, well productivity, EUR, and well interference in order to define optimum well spacing for further
development.

Four horizontal wells were drilled parallel to one another in the rich wet gas area of Utica play. A 10’ long pressure
core was acquired in the target interval in order to acquire a down-hole fluid sample for comparison with separator
and well head samples. The analyses of the liberated gases and extracted liquids from the core provide an alternative
and faster way to determine in situ fluid properties in addition to obtaining more reliable saturations and basic core
properties. A series of logs were run in a pilot hole to assist in the placement of the well laterals in the target
interval. Chemical tracer tests were conducted to understand the efficiency of inflow for each of the fracture stages,
and down-hole micro-seismic mapping in three wells was used to evaluate the fracture geometries.
Integration of this extensive data set will offer significant insights into future well performance, recovery, and well
to well connectivity in this area of the play. The acquisition of a pressure core was particularly critical to understand
any variation in fluid composition and properties down-hole compared to surface samples since condensate recovery
is one of the major uncertainties impacting project economics. A discussion of the pressure core analysis, and other
lessons learned on completion efficiencies and well interference and spacing will be presented.

Introduction

Data acquisition early in the life of resource plays is critical to narrow down the huge uncertainties in reservoir
evaluation and performance predictions, particularly so with shale play development. The types of data acquired
range from the basic (static) data on rock and fluids to more complex rock mechanical, fluid flow, chemical trace
test, and down-hole micro seismic data. Integration of various engineering data allows for reliable reservoir

URTeC 2014
Page 230
 URTeC: 1923095 2

characterization, more effective wellbore placement and hydraulic fracturing strategy, better characterization of the
fracture stimulation treatments and a detailed understanding of reservoir fluids and flow behavior. Ultimately, the
goal is to provide more accurate assessment of well performance employing all the data in an integrated manner.

Often conventional reservoir fluid sampling techniques fail to provide representative fluid samples in these shale
Downloaded 11/05/14 to 155.198.30.43. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

reservoirs. However, emerging alternative methods such as extracting fluids from pressurized cores may provide an
alternative in spite of formidable challenges in quantifying the evolved gases and in distinguishing between mobile
and immobile heavy hydrocarbons. Two distinguishing technologies, horizontal and hydraulic fracturing, make
unconventional formation production economically possible by connecting natural MF networks and nano-Darcy
matrices to the well bore, thereby expanding the drainage area. Proper placement of a horizontal well coupled with
effective stimulation allows for maximum reservoir contact. To make reliable performance predictions, it is critical
to obtain high quality rock and fluid data and quantify the associated uncertainties. This paper identifies critical
fluid, rock and rock-fluid properties and quantifies their relative impacts on performance prediction.

Reservoir Rock and Rock-Fluid Characterization

It is to create a fully integrated characterization of LRS formation is critical to accurately map natural fractures and
faults that influence the hydraulic fracture placement and the resultant fluid flow characteristics,. The integrated
reservoir characterization should include geological, geochemical, petro-graphical, petrophysical and geo-
mechanical rock-fluid parameters and incorporate them into reliable models that can capture existing inter-well
formation continuity/anisotropy and potential fluid variability. This article specifically addresses the acquisition and
characterization of these engineering parameters.

Over the past years, significant progress has been made [Clarkson et al. (2011), Orangi et al. (2011), Honarpour et
al, (2012), Bertoncello (2013), and Nagarajan et al, (2013)] in understanding geological, geo-chemical, geo-
mechanical, petro-physical and rock and fluid characterization of unconventional plays. It has been further
recognized that a careful acquisition and diligent integration of these data of multi-disciplinary nature is imminent
for the evaluation of a given play or a part of a play (e.g. a pad). In this article, we will discuss the design, execution
and evaluation of various data acquisition programs applied on a four well pad in the rich wet gas area of Utica-
Point Pleasant formation.

Current literature provides a wealth of information about a specific set of data acquisition and evaluation program,
like core or fluid analysis. However, the design and implementation of these programs have significant impact on
the results. In this article, it is shown that special emphasis on the design and execution steps is necessary in the pad
program. Data acquisition program includes:

o Drilling a pilot hole for acquiring a comprehensive log suite

o Acquisition of conventional and pressurized (preserved) cores
o Conducting a chemical tracer test and data acquisition
o Monitoring micro seismic events down-hole for three pad wells
o Sampling wellhead/separator fluids
o Gathering down-hole pressure data and surface production data

Design of Data Acquisition Program

Geology, Petro-physics and Geo-steering

The well pad for the data acquisition program was planned in the wet gas/condensate window of the Utica play
where the gross thickness of the Point Pleasant is 110’. A vertical pilot well was also planned in order to allow for
the collection of a complete suite of wire-line logs and acquisition of pressurized, speed, and conventional wire-line
cores. The planned well log suite included: Spectral GR, Laterolog Resistivity, Density, Neutron, Nuclear Magnetic
Resonance, Full Waveform Sonic, Elemental Spectroscopy, and Resistivity Micro-Imager. Four wells were designed
to be horizontally drilled within a 30’ reservoir target window, placing the borehole in the highest porosity layer
within the Point Pleasant. These wells were planned with 1,100’ spacing along an azimuth of 335°. Regional
mapping indicated that the Point Pleasant formation dips at an average angle of 1°(1.7’/100’) to the southeast. The
wells were planned to be parallel to the formation dip utilizing a toe-up profile while maintaining the specified well

URTeC 2014
Page 231
 URTeC: 1923095 3

spacing. Plans for geo-steering were developed to maintain contact with the reservoir target and account for local
dip changes and faulting.

Pressurized Core, Rock and Fluid (PVT) Properties

Downloaded 11/05/14 to 155.198.30.43. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

The corner stone of efficient reservoir management involves characterization of reservoir fluids using laboratory
data on representative fluid samples and by utilization of thermodynamically consistent, equation of state (EOS)
based fluid models. Acquisition of representative reservoir fluid samples from unconventional shale reservoirs,
particularly liquid-rich shale reservoirs, involves unique issues and formidable challenges. Sampling these
reservoirs are is challenging because of encountering extended transient flow periods, slow back-flow of drilling and
stimulation fluids, and the complex flow dynamics within the nano-micro pore systems.

In shale reservoirs, conventional down-hole sampling techniques suffer from fluid contaminations caused by drilling
mud invasion and stimulation-fluid flow-back. As the in-situ fluid flow does not occur without hydraulic fracturing,
extremely high draw down is required during sampling which might create a two-phase flow condition in the near
wellbore regions resulting in the acquisition of non-representative fluid samples. On the other hand, surface
sampling is generally scheduled after post stimulation shut-in and an extended back-flow period. Furthermore,
surface samples may still be impacted by unstable and declining rates of production usually encountered in liquid-
rich shale reservoirs. This results in fluctuating or constantly increasing GOR behavior. Often times, surface
sampling operation is scheduled during an optimum time window when stable GOR behavior may be observed;
however, determination of this time window requires a diligent reservoir surveillance program. Furthermore, this
window of opportunity may be available only after a period of production that may be too late in designing optimum
production strategies.

An alternative novel approach is to obtain pressurized reservoir cores that can be maintained at close to reservoir
conditions to retain all the in-situ fluids in the core during core retrieval to surface until the completion of laboratory
analysis. The in-situ fluid composition can be estimated by extracting all the core-fluids constrained through
material balance calculations. If adequate amounts of liquids and gases can be gathered through the core extraction
process, in-situ fluids can be reconstructed by proper recombination methods and basic reservoir fluid properties can
be measured. Table 1 provides a variety of coring techniques that may be employed to establish in-situ fluid
compositions and PVT properties. The coring techniques range from the routine conventional wire-line coring to
more intensive pressure coring methods and pressurized rotary side wall cores. Each technique offers certain key
advantages while suffering from a few drawbacks. In our opinion, wire-line pressure and speed cores are more
suitable for fluid extraction to analyze in-situ fluid compositions. We have developed a fluid sampling and
characterization protocol utilizing wire-line pressure core, speed core and conventional core techniques for sampling
a liquid-rich unconventional reservoir. Figure 1 shows the work flow for sampling and fluid characterization as
discussed later.

URTeC 2014
Page 232
 URTeC: 1923095 4

Table 1. Core-based Fluid Sampling and Characterization - Challenges and Shortcomings

Sampling Conditions at
Techniques Advantage Short Comings Sample Size Remarks
Approach Surface
Wireline Pressure Core is taken at Gas and oil Valves to gas Full Dia. 3.0- Elevated P & T Low invasion
Core reservoir P & T samples can be containers may plug 3.5”, 10.0’ long coring with WBM
Downloaded 11/05/14 to 155.198.30.43. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

but fluid expands collected from a up, core may not seal at over-balance
in associated larger core in the barrel, oil &
pressure volume. Oil and evolved gas are kept
containers gas are kept in the separately
same container
Wireline Rotary Core plugs taken Much more Small sample volume Plug 1.5” dia Elevated P & T Low invasion
Side Wall Plugs at reservoir P & T economical, can in low porosity rocks, and 3.0” long coring with WBM
Pressurized but fluids are sample several challenging for lean & at over-balance
kept together and different zones in rich gas. More
cooled at surface one run susceptible to
invasion
Wireline Speed Core is taken at More useful for Core may experience Full diameter Elevated T but Low invasion
Core reservoir P & T viscous oil; but mechanical damage cores 10.0’ long ambient P coring with WBM
but retrieved fast may provide and significant loss of 3.0” – 3.5” dia. at over-balance
composition lighter ends
similar to pressure
core
Conventional Core is taken at Intermediate and Most lighter ends may Full dia. Up to Ambient T & P Low invasion
Core reservoir P & T, heaver ends be lost and 5.5” and entire coring with WBM
high overbalance, remains intermediates may be cored section at over-balance
often OBM expelled
invaded

Conventional/ Expelled oil Sample of Most lighter ends may Full dia. Up to Ambient P & T Low invasion
Liquid Trapper during retrieval is reservoir oil for be lost 4.0” and 30’ coring with WBM
captured in API and viscosity cored section at over-balance
containers built-in at ambient P&T
the core barrel

1 5
Hold core barrel Heat the WPC to 120 Conduct material
Calibrate the tanks & oF to release and Measure physical
and tanks at properties (basic PVT balance check on all
the core barrel with collect all gases in analyses
isothermal cond. properties) density
Helium and determine tanks
Monitor core barrel and viscosity
dead volume Recombine
P & T for safe
Measure collected gas mathematically liquid
2 transportation Measure gas
volume, pressure, & gas compositions &
6 volume, composition
Acquire WPC using composition & liquid volume to obtain in-
WBM at moderate Chill the core and and density from all
content, if any, using situ composition
over balance (500- Hotshot the tanks
Wet Test Meter, Teflon
600 psi) Hotshot
core barrel and the
vials / syringe Conduct crushed rock Build an EOS model
tanks to CL in analysis on the 10’ long
3 using measured basic
Denver Cool, CT Scan & rock material for basic
7 PVT properties /
Customize core Crush the entire 10’ properties and
Cut ~1.0’ long FD composition
retrieval program for core in a closed petrographic &
minimal damage
cores from system and collect Simulate basic lab
geochem
conventional core released gases for PVT test to generate
4 immediately above & volume & Conduct desorption on PVT tables for
Ensure all liberated below the 10’ WPC composition 1.0’ FD samples until reservoir simulation
gases are captured section & place in stabilization. Measure and BTU calculations
by adequate # of canisters at 150 – Perform cryo- composition
tanks; the last tank 160 degree F and Physically recombine
distillation or extraction periodically
must be equipped ship to lab for gas and perform limited
with CS2. Use all
with 500 psi relief desorp. Measure PVT measurements, if
collected liquids for
valve basic properties & adequate volumes of
volume, composition
petrographic analy fluids are collected for
&geochem
model validation

Well Site Procedure Lab Procedure PVT Modeling

Figure 1. Core-Based Fluid Sampling and Characterization Protocol

URTeC 2014
Page 233
 URTeC: 1923095 5

Micro Seismic Monitoring

Optimal well spacing is a critical factor for economic success of an unconventional project. Correctly spaced
laterals is a crucial requirement to drain the reservoir by a fewer wells with little un-stimulated rock left between the
laterals but without interfering with one another. Unfortunately, the mere presence of micro seismic events neither
Downloaded 11/05/14 to 155.198.30.43. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

guarantees effective drainage nor does the overlapping of two adjacent event clouds indicates interference between
neighboring wells. We have developed a host of criteria for effectively using micro seismic event locations. In this
article, we show three different ways of using it:

1. Mapping the overlap of micro seismic clouds from adjacent laterals

2. Mapping the effects of pressure shadowing from one well onto a neighboring well
3. Mapping event asymmetries

Chemical Tracers Tests

Conducting tracer tests and the resultant data acquisition allow identification of possible communications between
offset wells during flow back. It is also instrumental for the diagnosis of noncontributing zones/stages. In general,
chemical tracers aid in the identification of water flow and cannot be used as a direct evidence of hydrocarbon
production. Use of chemical tracers also helps to determine the presence of any mechanical barriers in the wellbore.
Various non-reactive chemical tracer products were added in one of the middle wells in the pad and then water
samples were collected from all wells during flow back period and early production.

Down-hole Gauge Pressure and Production data

Production data coupled with down-hole pressure data will be critical in the assessment of this play. A retrievable
bottom-hole pressure gauge is to be installed in the build section of the production tubing of an interior well. This
gauge will have flow through capability to provide both static and flowing data. The gauge will be run prior to
production in order to confirm reservoir pressure and will be compared with DFIT results. This well will then
remain shut in as while the two offset wells are produced to monitor for production/pressure response. The interior
measuring well will then be brought on production before being shut in for a pressure build up. At this time, the
gauge will be retrieved from the well for data analysis. Production from all wells will be monitored for condensate,
water, and gas volumes. Wells will be produced to ensure bottomhole pressures are maintained above the dew point
to prevent any leaning or condensate blocking effects. Accurate production data is critical to the analysis and will be
measured utilizing orifice meters, turbine meters, and tank gauging. All wells will be monitored with digital
wellhead pressure gauges, and pressure and production data will be available via remote monitoring capabilities.

Execution of Data Acquisition Program

Geology, Petro-physics and Geo-steering

The well log data acquired in the Pilot hole was used to define the main horizontal target zone within the Point
Pleasant. Rock quality data and TOC measurements were the primary determining factors. Utilizing a MWD gamma
ray measurement along with drill cutting descriptions, the wellbores were geosteered using the pilot well data for an
offset correlation log. The average inclinations for these near-horizontal wellbores were 90.6°. One minor fault was
encountered in one of the four wells. The well lengths ranged from 4,471’ to 4,702’ with the heel of the well about
40’ vertically deeper than the toe. All wells were successfully drilled within the target reservoir. A horizontal quad
combo logging suite was used to evaluate the reservoir in contact with the borehole.

Pressurized Coring - Rock and Fluid (PVT) Properties

The tasks involved in the acquisition of pressurized cores and determining the in-situ fluid characteristics are
divided into three categories, the well-site procedures, laboratory procedures and PVT modeling. The corresponding
QA/QC protocols were also included as part of the procedures (see Figure 1).The well site procedure involves core
preparation and preservation for shipping in addition to the customized procedures of pressure core acquisition. The
laboratory procedure deals with protocols for various procedures including gas measurements, liquid extraction

URTeC 2014
Page 234
 URTeC: 1923095 6

methods and compositional analysis. Finally, the PVT modeling part addresses the routine fluid data acquisition and
EOS-based fluid characterization procedures.

Three full diameters cores from a liquid-rich shale reservoir, a 10’ pressure core, a 10’ speed core, and a 90’
conventional core, were obtained. Figure 2 shows the variability in the rock types over this core section based on
Downloaded 11/05/14 to 155.198.30.43. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

dual energy CT-scan.

What did we learn from CT scanning?

• Generally high porosity, high organic

(Green/black) more oil wet – less leak off
• Intermittent high compressive strength beds
(Red/blue) less oil wet – more leak off

Higher porosity & lower calcite Higher porosity & calcite & hi UCS

Lower porosity & more calcite & hi UCS

Lower porosity & lower calcite

Figure 2. Variability of Rock Type in the Cored Section (Dual CT-Scan)

In addition, surface fluid samples were collected at a later date to validate fluid characterization through pressure
core extracted fluids or in case of failure in the pressurized coring operations, it can serve as the basis of fluid
characterization. The physical samples acquired consisted of a pressurized wellhead fluid samples as well as
separator gas, condensate, and water samples. for which Although collection of a pressurized wellhead samples was
successful, it was not used for PVT characterization as the samples were suspected of good quality due to the
sampling pressure being very near to the measured dew point pressure in a constant composition expansion
experiment at the wellhead temperature, It was decided to use the separator samples for comparison with pressure-
core extracted in-situ fluid composition and for further PVT analysis.

Micro Seismic Monitoring

Figure 3 shows a map view of the treatment wells #1, #3, and #4. The surface location and heel of the wells is at the
bottom of the map, the toes of the wells are at the top. Downhole microseismic monitoring was performed in well
#2. The listening array of seismic sensors consisted of 11 geophones and was delivered through a tractor device into
the toe of well #2 indicated by the red positions. For intermediate stages the tool was pulled into the green position,
and for the toe stages, they were repositioned to the blue location.

URTeC 2014
Page 235
 URTeC: 1923095 7
Downloaded 11/05/14 to 155.198.30.43. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Figure 3. Map View of Well Plan and Fracture Stages

Chemical Tracer Tests

Non-reactive chemical tracers which are proprietary salts dissolved in water were added continuously in ppm
amounts into the fracturing fluid during the completion in one of the middle wells at the pad. Twenty eight (28)
different chemical tracer products were used in order to differentiate between various stages. After successful
completion of tracer treatment, water samples were acquired during flow back and early production. These samples
were shipped to the designated laboratory and results of the analysis were received within days.

Down-hole Gauge Pressure and Production data

Sustained production from wells had its challenges with the commissioning of a new facility. Frequent well shut-ins
were required as a result of facility requirement issues and eventually, they were resolved. In addition, wells were
constrained to ensure that bottom-hole pressures remained above the expected dew point pressure. This caused the

URTeC 2014
Page 236
 URTeC: 1923095 8

wells to produce very near or below critical unloading velocities posing challenges in determining future production
potential. Down-hole pressure gauge was retrieved however analysis on acquired data is inconclusive.

Integrated Data Evaluation

Downloaded 11/05/14 to 155.198.30.43. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Well: CNX GUE10N7W 3P 8

Geology, Petro-physics, and Geo-steering

The Petro-physical interpretation in the Utica/Point Pleasant was performed using a probabilistic error minimization
technique to derive formation volumes from multiple logs. The model solves for the volume of quartz, clay, calcite,
pyrite, and kerogen, along with porosity and fluid volumes. The probabilistic petrophysical model has been
calibrated against core data such as mineralogy from XRD, and petro-physical properties from GRI methods that
were acquired in neighboring wells. TOC from logs were derived based on ∆LogR method by Passey et al. (1990),
which has also been calibrated against organic chemical analysis performed on core and drill cuttings. Figure 4
shows the formation evaluation for the pilot hole.

GAMMA RAY RESISTIVITY D_LOG_R POROSITY VOLUMES POROSITY SATURATION SONIC PERMEABILITY
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

PEFZ VOL_KEROGEN
0 B/E 20 0 MV 1

HDRA VOL_PYRITE TOC_BD

-0.8 G/C3 0.2 0 V/V 1 0 30

WIRE.RLA5_1 TNPH VOL_CALCITE MULT_VAL_TOC ANALYSIS.POIS_1

0.2 OHMM 2000 0.3 V/V -0.1 0 V/V 1 0 30 0 1

WIRE.HCAL_1 DEPTH WIRE.RLA3_1 WIRE.DTCO_1 RHOG VOL_QUARTZ TOC_D_LOG_R WIRE.DTSM_1 ANALYSIS.YMOD_1

6 IN 16 FEET 0.2 OHMM 2000 160 US/F -40 2 G/C3 3 0 V/V 1 0 30 400 US/F 40 0 6PSI 10

WIRE.ECGR_1 1 : 500 WIRE.RLA4_1 WIRE.RLA5_1 RHOZ VOL_WCS PHIT SWT WIRE.DTCO_1 ANALYSIS.VPVS_1
NPERM_COATES_FFI
0 GAPI 200 0.2 OHMM 2000 1 OHMM 10000 2 G/C3 3 0 V/V 1 0.3 V/V 0 1 V/V 0 140 US/F 40 0 2 1 ND 10000
UTICA

X900
POINT_PLEASANT

X000
TRENTON

Figure 4. Pilot Hole Well Log Chart

The main inputs for the petrophysical model are present in tracks 1 to 4 (from left to right). Thus, GR is in track 1,
Resistivity in Track 2, Passey-Overlay (Sonic-Resistivity) in track 3, Density, Photo-electric factor (Pefz) and
Neutron in track 4. Track 5 shows the interpreted mineral volumes, while the calculated porosity, and TOC is in
track 6, and the water saturation in track 7. Track 9 and 10 show the mechanical properties, and the log derived
permeability, respectively.

The quad combo log in one of the horizontal wells of the pad has been used to identify any considerable variations
in rock properties across the borehole that might need to be taken into account for the reservoir modeling and
completion purposes.

URTeC 2014
Page 237
 URTeC: 1923095 9

Pressurized Coring - Rock and Fluid (PVT) Properties

The compositional analyses of the flashed gas and the extracted fluid from both the preserved pressure and the
preserved speed core sections were conducted in the laboratory. The canister gas analysis was also performed to
characterize the total gas from the cores. Based on these analyses, an in-situ fluid composition was calculated.
Downloaded 11/05/14 to 155.198.30.43. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Figure 5 shows a comparison of the pressure core extracted fluid compositions for three samples along with the
stock tank composition obtained from an actual surface separator sample gathered later from the same well. With the
exception of a few lighter liquid components, we found an amazing agreement between pressure-core extracted
fluids and the separator liquid in spite of the significant process differences that these fluids went through before
reaching the stock tank condition.

C7+ Composition Distribution - Core Extracted Liquids Vs STO

from Separator Oil
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
Log of wt%

1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Carbon Number
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sept Liquid

Figure 5. Compositions of Extracted Liquids Compared with STO Composition from the Separator
Liquid

Micro Seismic Monitoring

Figure 6 is a map view of the micro seismic events in all frac stages. This representation is often referred to as
“Dots in the Box”. For the rest of this discussion, the focus is aimed on the amount of interference between wells
#1 and #3. Figure 6 shows all events for all fracture stages, and there is significant overlap among them that it is not
possible to accurately see the amount of overlap in the event clouds.

URTeC 2014
Page 238
 URTeC: 1923095 10
Downloaded 11/05/14 to 155.198.30.43. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Figure 6. Map View of All Frac Stages

For clarity, three stages for the two adjacent wells #1 and #3 are shown in Figure 7. Significant overlap of the event
clouds was observed. However, there is more overlap in the middle and the heel sections compared to toe section
where relatively less overlap was observed. Event clouds have at times been erroneously used to quantify
stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) but in fact the “dots in the box” do not directly relate to drainage area, or the

URTeC 2014
Page 239
 URTeC: 1923095 11

location of proppant or to an indication of where the fracture fluid has moved in. Overlapping of event clouds from
adjacent wells is a first line of evidence relating to well spacing, but by itself it does not indicate the extent of
interference between neighboring wells. Overlapping event clouds alone cannot be used to confidently predict the
effective fracture length required for estimating the amount of production coming from the propped fractures.
Downloaded 11/05/14 to 155.198.30.43. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Figure 7. Map View of Wells #1 and #3: Selected Frac Stages

Pressure shadowing is the effect of localized perturbation of the stress field caused by the pumped-in fracture fluids
down-hole. If data shows that if one well causes pressure shadowing that affects the stress distribution in its
neighbor, then it can be considered as a measure of the amount of well to well interference. For determining proper
well spacing this can serve more as a diagnostic than overlap of event clouds.

URTeC 2014
Page 240
 URTeC: 1923095 12

Pressure shadowing is most evident when one well is fractured in advance of its neighbor. Pressure shadowing is
not seen on zipper fractures where the stages are opposing each other. In Figure 8, well #3 was fractured before the
corresponding stages in well #1. This created a pressure bank around well #3 that altered the local stress distribution
in the area of well #1.
Downloaded 11/05/14 to 155.198.30.43. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Note that at the top of the map toe sections of both wells, colored red and blue, have an event cloud azimuth of
N60E which corresponds with the regional direction of minimum stress (Sh min). The mid and heel stages of well #3
also have a trend of N60E. However, the mid and heel stages of well #1 have been rotated to N30E, we believe this
was an effect caused by a change of the local stresses by well #3. The last heel stage in well #1, at the bottom of the
map colored yellow, has a direction of about N45E which is consistent with it being on the outer edge of the
pressure bank. In summary, by creating a pressure bank in well #1 we have redirected the position of the fractures in
well #1 by at least temporarily changing the stress field at well #3. The effect of the pressure shadowing between
neighboring wells is a direct measure of the distance over which well #1 has influence.

URTeC 2014
Page 241
 URTeC: 1923095 13
Downloaded 11/05/14 to 155.198.30.43. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Figure 8. Pressure Shadowing: Effect of well #3 on well #1

Asymmetry of events is the third effect that can give a measure of effective well influence. Where one well is
fractured before the other, event ellipses for stages in the first well are symmetrical, with roughly the same
distribution of events on both sides of the well. In virgin rocks, there is no preference for a frac to go to one side of
the well in preference to the other. The second well, however, if close enough to fractures caused by the
neighboring well, will use these fractures previously opened by the first well instead of opening new fractures.
Figure 9 shows that this “piggyback” effect is quite obvious in well #1, where most of the events are in the region
where well #3 had its effect. The presence of this effect is counter intuitive as one might expect the fractures in well
#1 to be steered away from a high pressure area caused by well #1.

URTeC 2014
Page 242
 URTeC: 1923095 14
Downloaded 11/05/14 to 155.198.30.43. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Figure 9. Asymmetry of Micro Seismic in Fractured Area

Chemical Tracers

As mentioned earlier, two objectives for the injection of chemical tracers into the hydraulic fractures were analyzing
the possible inter well communication and contribution of frac stages to production. Figure 10 shows the
concentration of tracers pumped into Well #3. As expected, most of the tracer concentration is being produced from
the same well. There is, however, considerable concentration being produced from Well #1 adjacent to Well #3.
This is a convincing proof of hydraulic communication between the adjacent wells. Figure 10 also suggests
contribution from all stages except the first stage which is at the toe of the well. This might be due to relatively
lower pressure drop at the toe of the well in the early part of the flow-back.

URTeC 2014
Page 243
 URTeC: 1923095 15
Downloaded 11/05/14 to 155.198.30.43. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Figure 10. Produced Tracer Concentrations from Four Wells in a Pad

Down-hole Gauge Pressure & Production Data

Dynamic data is one of the most significant items of any data acquisition program. Sustained and good quality
production data is essential but operationally challenging, especially in a new environment. Wells #3 and 4 were
produced for a period of time spanning three months. The rates and wellhead pressures were recorded daily. The rate
and pressure responses are shown in Figure 11. Well 2 production started three months later and over the short
period of time it produced, the rates and pressures exhibited very similar response as well #4. The downhole
pressure gauge installed in Well 2 also showed pressure depletion during the production of the offset wells.
Although downhole gauge data analysis is inconclusive, it confirms the well communication suggested by the other
analysis.

3 8400
2.5 8200
Pressure, psi

2 8000
Gas Rate

1.5 7800
7600
1
7400 Well 2
0.5 Well 3
7200
0 Well 4
7000

Figure 11. Gas Rate and Wellhead Pressure Profiles

URTeC 2014
Page 244
 URTeC: 1923095 16

Summary and Conclusion

A holistic and integrated data acquisition program from a four well pad was developed to achieve multi objectives
set for the development of these wells in the Utica shale Point Pleasant zone. First, measurement and logging while
drilling provided data for geo-steering these wells to keep them within the target reservoir zones. The pressure
Downloaded 11/05/14 to 155.198.30.43. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

coring and fluid extraction from pressure cores were used to provide an alternate and faster way of obtaining in-situ
fluid compositions and PVT properties, if adequate sample volumes can be extracted. The micro seismic monitoring
provided an opportunity to gauge the well interference, pressure shadowing effects, and fracture interference. The
down-hole gauge pressure data and surface production data over a period of time enabled to assess the production
performance and design production strategies. The chemical tracer test data further facilitated to establish hydraulic
communication among adjacent wells and fracture contribution. Base on the fully integrated data gathering program
and the integrated data evaluation, the following conclusions can be arrived at.

 A holistic data acquisition program is critical to planning development and production strategies of liquid
rich shale reservoirs.
 Measurements and logging while drilling enabled the geo-steering the four horizontal wells in a pad to keep
the well spacing and well trajectories at specified levels and targeted reservoir zones.
 Pressure coring, speed coring, and conventional coring proved to be an excellent approach to get earlier and
virgin reservoir fluid characteristics and PVT properties. In addition, pressure cores provided a better
opportunity to get reliable routine and special core analysis data such as saturations.
 Microseismic monitoring is critical to understand the effects of stress redistribution within and adjacent
wells, pressure shadowing, and to some extent fracture effectiveness.
 Effective fracture length will ultimately be determined following sufficient production. However, early
estimations can confidently be made using microseismic in the following three ways:
o Microseismic “Dots in the Box” overlap by 10% to 50%
o Pressure shadowing of Well #1
 Asymmetry of Well #1 events centered towards well #3 production data in the near future will add insight
to well interference This will be verified and refined with additional data from:
o Flow-back and production
o Tracer analysis
 The tracer tests conducted in conjunction with injected frac fluids enabled to establish hydraulic
communications among the pad wells as well as fracture contribution.
 The down-hole gauge pressures and surface production data were useful for production performance and
well interference evaluations.
 Finally, it is recommended for shale wells that a diligent data acquisition program and effective use of these
data are required for efficient and effective drilling, completion, rock-fluid characterization, production
performance and well interference evaluation. This is the most critical task for the successful development
and production of liquid rich shale wells and maximizing their EUR potential.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Hess Management for the support provided in preparing this paper and Hess
and CNX Management for the approval to publish it.

References
Passey, Q., et. al, “A Practical Model for Organic Richness from Porosity and Resistivity Logs”, AAPG V.74, no.
12, December 1990.

Clarkson, C. R., Pedersen, P. K., “Production Analysis of Western Canadian Unconventional Light Oil Plays,”
CSUG/ SPE 149005, presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference held in Calgary, Canada,
November 15-17, 2011.

URTeC 2014
Page 245
 URTeC: 1923095 17

Orangi, A., Nagarajan, N., R., Honarpour, M. M., and Rosenzweig, J., “Unconventional Shale Oil and Gas-
Condensate Reservoir Production, Impact of Rock, Fluid, and Hydraulic Fractures”, SPE 140536, Presented at the
SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, TX, USA, January 24-26, 2011.

Honarpour, M. M., Nagarajan, N. R., Orangi, A., Arasteh, F., and Yao, Z.,” Characterization of Critical Fluid, Rock,
Downloaded 11/05/14 to 155.198.30.43. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

and Rock-Fluid Properties-Impact on Reservoir Performance of Liquid-rich Shales”, SPE 158042, Presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, October 8-10, 2012.

Bertoncello, A. and Honarpour, M. M., “Standards for Characterization of Rock Properties in Unconventional
Reservoirs - Fluid Flow Mechanism, Quality Control, and Uncertainties”, SPE 166470, To be presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, September 30– October 2 2013.

N. R. Nagarajan, M. M. Honarpour, F. Arasteh, “Critical Role of Rock and Fluid - Impact on Reservoir Performance
on Unconventional Shale Reservoirs”,URTeC 1585730, Presented at the Unconventional Reservoir Technology
Conference, Denver, Colorado, USA, 12-14 August 2013.

URTeC 2014
Page 246