of 13
7/28/2019 Stratas Tim Analysis Methodology
1/13
Fracture SpacingUsing StrataStim Workflow
Integrating data to optimize your frac tre
Lyle Lehman
StrataGen Engineering
7/28/2019 Stratas Tim Analysis Methodology
2/13
Outline Vertical to horizontal
What are the reasons? Fracture Spacing/Completion
Case history the Cleveland s
Conclusions
7/28/2019 Stratas Tim Analysis Methodology
3/13
VerticalVertical
FracedHorizontal
Horizontal
Axial FracHorizontal
5 Transv.
Fracs
Ho
11
Fra
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Recovery at 10 Years
(Cum/OGIP)
Well Type
Going sideways
and liking it
As E&P companies developunconventional assets, theneed to expose more net pay
has required that wellboresbe placed horizontally in thepay zone.
7/28/2019 Stratas Tim Analysis Methodology
4/13
Completion
practices
Tradit ionally, Plug and Perf (PNP) offered a method to place fractures designing engineer wanted them
The cost became prohibitive, both inbut mainly due to time
Most stimulation service companiesthe use of multi -stimulation valves totime on location
Some had higher Capital costs, but quicker completion time
7/28/2019 Stratas Tim Analysis Methodology
5/13
Optimum production
through bettercompletion practicesFrac L
PerforationSpacing
7/28/2019 Stratas Tim Analysis Methodology
6/13
The ClevelandNet Pay (ft)
Permeability (md) 0.01
Porosity (%)
Water saturation (%)
Reservoir pressure gradient
(psig/ft)
0
Top of pay (ft TVD) 8
GOR (SCF/bbl) 3
Length of lateral (ft) 4
Reservoir temperature (0F)
7/28/2019 Stratas Tim Analysis Methodology
7/13
Analysis Approach Surveyed 55 wells recently completed ithe Cleveland
Created a statistical database, and geneaverage values
Created a P10, 50 and 90 case for Perm
Used actual fracture spacing data, with treatment
Generated a production decline curve fo P case
Weighed-in economics with discountedcash flow
Reported the results
7/28/2019 Stratas Tim Analysis Methodology
8/13
Stimulation data
used in reservoirsimulations
Variable (ft) 400 MFV 2
Fluid volume (gal) 52,000 3
Proppant volume (lb) and
type per fracture
100,000 40/70
White Sand
3
W
Propped length (ft) 521.4 3
Fcd assuming 50% damage to pack 54.478 4
Note: Fcd values in both cases may appear to beBecause of the low-formation permeabil ity, the heasy to achieve. However, mult i-phase flow was considered when assuming the damage factor.
7/28/2019 Stratas Tim Analysis Methodology
9/13
Results
TimeOil Rate_MFV k=0...., Gas Rate_MFC k=0...., Oil Rate_PNP k=0...., Gas Rate_PNP k=0....
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
400 Spacing
Gas
400 Spacing
Oil
200 Spacing
Gas
200 Spacing
Oil
7/28/2019 Stratas Tim Analysis Methodology
10/13
Results of
frac spacings
Years/
Spacing (ft)
200 400
1 727,659 145,664
2 1,034,149 226,742
5 1,393,344 382,604
10 1,665,456 503,534
Note: This case is the P50 permeabili ty of 0.00The authors used a P90 case of 0.0006 md andcase of 0.01 md. Only in the P10 case did 400-perform better than the below table represents
7/28/2019 Stratas Tim Analysis Methodology
11/13
After Tax
Discountedcash flow
($2,000,000)
($1,500,000)
($1,000,000)
($500,000)
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
400 Completion
200 Com
$400 Comp= $200*
7/28/2019 Stratas Tim Analysis Methodology
12/13
How could this
solution becorrected?
Doubling Proppant volume increacosts 15%, yet equalized the econon the NPV
Shortening the spacing to 200 imNPV performance but increased c
Shortening spacing to 231.5, usi
same frac volumes surpassed theby the other jobs, but increased c
7/28/2019 Stratas Tim Analysis Methodology
13/13
The main controlling factors for reserrecovery in matrix-based reservoirs th
are hydraulically fractured as part of tcompletion are:
Reservoir perm
Reservoir pressure
Fracture conductivity
Propped length
Fracture spacing
Conclusions
The combin
these variable
solution whichfit your eco