1
Benchmarking Completion StrategiesMontney and DuvernayMay 8, 2018
Mark Kowaluk, EngineerJoshua WY. Lee, Engineer
Objective
• Demonstrate an investigative process for the integration of crossdisciplinary data sets for the analysis of two study areas
2
Introduction
• Horizontal multi‐stage frac completions have been instrumental inthe development of unconventional reservoirs – especially in Canada.
• The Montney and Duvernay are two of Canada’s top resource plays• Since the early 2000s, Western Canada has seen over 36,000horizontal multi‐stage frac wells – with 6,300+ and 600+ of these inthe Montney and Duvernay, respectively
Montney Swan‐Glacier
3
Montney Swan-GlacierBasic Play Metrics
Commentary• 481 horizontal multi‐stage
wells in chosen area since 2006
• Multiple targets inside theMontney as well as the Doig
• Wells drilled NW‐SE
Montney Study Area
Montney Swan-GlacierEvolution of Completion Design
• Well activity peaked in 2010
• Lateral lengths increasing
• Number of stages increasing
• Fracture spacing decreasing
Legend
YOY Well Metric Progression Commentary
4
Montney Swan-GlacierEvolution of Completion Design
Fracture Fluid Energizer
Technology Commentary• Completions shift:
• Water to Surfactant to Slickwater
• CO2 and binary energized to N2energized and non‐energized
• CT & P&P to B&S with a fewmultiple technology completions
Montney Swan-GlacierTarget Landing Depth
Wellbore Diagram (w.r.t Montney Top)
Commentary
DOIG U. M
ONTN
EY
M. MONTNEY
L. MON
TNEY
• Developed average distance from the Montney top for each well• Visually classified the wells into four zones :
• Doig, Upper Montney, Middle Montney and Lower Montney
Average Distance from Montney Top
5
Montney Swan-GlacierLiquids – Deep Cut
Doig Upper Montney
Middle Montney Lower Montney
Montney Swan-GlacierCalculation of Production Metric
YOY 12 Month Cumulative Normalized Prod (boe/m)
• 6 and 12 month production
are calculated based on
cumulative hours on (4,320
and 8,640 hours, respectively)
• BOE = produced gas +
produced condensate + deep
cut at plant (from contours)
• Normalized to completed
lateral length12 month length normalized BOE (boe/m)
Commentary
6
Montney Swan-GlacierCompletion Benchmarking
Proppant Intensity
• Indications that pumping greater than 2 T/m is beneficial to production
• Only sand fractures have been pumped at greater than T/m intensity
Proppant Intensity and Composition
Commentary
Montney Swan-GlacierCompletion Benchmarking
Fluid Intensity
• Some advantage to running larger fluid intensities (>10 m3/m)
• Slickwater generally outperforms older water based systems
Fluid Type
Commentary
7
Montney Swan-GlacierCompletion Benchmarking
Completion Technology
• Ball and Seat technologies have been consistent performers
• Multiple technology completions show promise but there is a limited sample size
• Tighter frac spacing is advantageous
Fracture Spacing
Commentary
• In our study area, operators have targeted the Doig, Upper, Middle andLower Montney.
• A normalized cumulative production variable was selected to compare thewells
• The Montney wells have been getting better production YOY, except for thelower Montney, which has seen a decrease in the recent years
• Over the course of 10+ years, many types of completions have been tried.The following are beneficial to production in the Montney:
• Higher intensity fractures• Larger slickwater treatments• Ball and seat completions• Decreasing fracture spacing
Montney Observations
8
Duvernay Kaybob
Duvernay Study Area
Legend
Commentary• 621 horizontal multi‐stage
Duvernay wells since 2011
• Development focused onthe Kaybob, WillesdenGreen and East Basin areas
• We have selected theKaybob area for furtherinvestigation
• In this area the wells aredrilled predominantly NW‐SE and N‐S direction
Duvernay KaybobBasic Play Metrics
9
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (YTD)
Lateral Len
gth (m
)
Frac Stages (#) | Frac S
pacin
g (m
) | W
ell C
ount (#
)
Average of Lateral length (m) Average of Well ‐ Stages Actual (#) Average of Frac Spacing (m) Well Count (#)
YOY Well Metric Progression
Duvernay KaybobEvolution of Completion Design
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Well C
ount (#
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Well C
ount (#
)
Fracture FluidTechnology
• Initial exploration saw ball drop system being used• Completions technology has shifted to predominantly plug & perf with some CT and multiple• Two primary fluid systems used• There was an increase in the percentage of hybrid‐slickwaters used until 2017, at which time the
shift went towards slickwater fracs
Commentary
Duvernay KaybobEvolution of Completion Design
10
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
AvgProp
pant In
tensity
(kg/m)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Well C
ount (#
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
AvgEn
try Po
int S
pacin
g (m
)
Median Number of Entry Point Average Entry Point Spacing
Average of Proppant Intensity Commentary• 4 and 5 median number of entry points
is the most common• Steady decrease in average entry point
spacing• YOY increase in proppant intensity on a
kg per m basis
Duvernay KaybobEvolution of Completion Design
AOI Deep Cut Contour
Deep Cut Yield
(bbl/mmcf)
Duvernay KaybobLiquids – Deep Cut
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
12 m
ono
rmalize
d prod
uctio
n (boe
/m)
Proppant Intensity (kg/m)
Ceramic/Sand
Resin‐Coated/Sand
Sand
Proppant Intensity vs 12 Mo Norm Cum Prod Cumulative Probability of Proppant Intensity
Commentary• Sand only fractures generally done with a higher intensity• Proppant intensity can be binned into 3 categories – low, medium and high intensity
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Percen
tile
Proppant Intensity (kg/m)
Low Intensity
Medium Intensity
High Intensity
Duvernay KaybobCompletions Benchmarking
Proppant Intensity vs 6 Mo Cumulative Production Proppant Intensity vs 12 Mo Cumulative Production
Commentary• The low intensity completions are resulting in lower 6 and 12 month cumulative production• The regular and high intensity completions on average have a 25 and 50% higher production in the 6 month case• In the 12 month cumulative case, the regular and high intensity case have a 40% higher production
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Percen
tile
12 mo normalized production (boe/m)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Percen
tile
6 mo normalized production (boe/m)
Duvernay KaybobCompletions Benchmarking
P50 Values:Low Intensity: 40 boe/mMed Intensity: 50 boe/mHigh Intensity: 60 boe/m
P50 Values:Low Intensity: 65 boe/mMed Intensity: 90 boe/mHigh Intensity: 100 boe/m
12
Frac Fluid Median Number of Entry Points
Commentary• There is not a significant difference in using slickwater and hybrid‐slickwater• Both slickwater and hybrid‐slickwater outperform water fracs• There appears to be a benefit of 5 median number of entry points per stage
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Percen
tile
12 mo normalized production (boe/m)
Slickwater Hybrid‐Slickwater Water
Duvernay KaybobCompletions Benchmarking
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Percen
tile
12 mo normalized production (boe/m)
Completion Metric 2012 –2014 2015 –2017
Lateral Length (m) 1,755 2,299
Stages (#) 16 33
Proppant Intensity (kg/m) 1,452 2,445
Avg Entry Point Spacing (m) 35 18
YOY Rate Time
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 12 24 36 48 60 72
Cal D
ay BOE
Rate (boe
/d)
Normalized Time
2012 2013 20142015 2016 2017
Duvernay KaybobCompletions Benchmarking
13
Duvernay Observations
• Well completions in the Duvernay have been trending to:• Longer laterals• More stages• Higher frac intensity• Tighter entry point spacing
• It appears that slickwater and hybrid slickwater fracs are achievingsimilar results
• A higher median number of entry points appears to be beneficial• An increase in production is observed with an increase in proppantintensity
Takeaway
• Demonstrate an investigative process for the integration ofcross disciplinary data sets for the analysis of two study areas
• Next steps will involve machine learning and multi‐variateanalysis
For more information about geoLOGIC’s products and services, please email our sales team at [email protected].
mailto:[email protected]?subject=geoLOGIC%20Products%20Inquiry
