An Efficient and Optimized Approach to Multiple Fracturing of Horizontal Wells

An Efficient and Optimized Approach to Multiple Fracturing of Horizontal Wells Injectivity Frcaturing and Assurance Advantek Waste Management Services 11000 Richmond Ave, Suite 190 Houston TX 77042 713.532.7627 admin@advantekinternational.com www.advantekinternational.com

Outline Introduction Geomechanics Multiple Fracturing of Horizontal Wells Injection Performance Test Monitoring, Assurance and Compliance SRV Assessment Concluding Remarks Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 2

Variety of Fracturing Configurations Frac Pack High Perm Stimulation for Selective Injectivity Selective Stimulation Selective/ Whole Matrix Treatment Longitudinal Fractures Multiple Transverse Fractures EPA Technical Workshop on H/F DC, March 10-11/2011 Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 3

Integrated Stimulation Process Optimization True Vertical Depth (ft) Min. RI Min. RI Min. RII Max. RII Sh FG Fracture Gradient (psi/ft) 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 11400 11600 11800 12000 12200 12400 12600 True Vertical Depth (ft) Minimum Horizontal Stress Overburden Pressure 11400 11600 11800 12000 12200 12400 12600 Reservoir Pore Pressure Minimum Horizontal Stress (psi) 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Reservoir Thickness Thin Medium Thick to V. Thick High Reservoir Permeability Medium Tight V. Tight Production Optimization 12800 12800 13000 13000 Log Interpretations Well Type Selection Integrated Approach for Lowest Cost Developmen Operational Monitoring and Intelligence Well Evaluation Design Models Best Practices Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 4

Shale Gas Rock Successful Exploitation - Key Enabling Technologies Horizontal Drilling + Hydraulic Fracturing Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 5

(2D) 24Oct1998 TerraFracOutPutdata (2D) 26Oct1998 TerraFracOutPutdata Fracture Shape & Proppant Concentration Diagram For Different Injection 1500 Scenarios and Complex Models 2000 2500 Depth (ft TVD) 3000 3500 3280 ft Casing Shoe 4000 4500 5000 Fracture Height (ft) 4752 ft Casing Shoe 5500 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0-100 -200-300 SolidParticleConcentrationafter5,390bblsInjected (4752ftInjectionPoint,MidLayersModeled, 0.81psi/ftGradient) 0 500 1000 HalfFractureLength(ft) 1 47 52 ft 4752 ft Injection. Point Mid Sand Layers Modeled 5390 bbls Injected 0.81 psi/ft Shale Stress Gradient SolidParticleConcentrationafter13,400bblsInjected Magnus:SolidVolumetricConcentration (V=14000bblsat4bpm&3ppgSolids) (4752ftInjectionPoint,MidLayersnotModeled,SolidsConsidered) 1000 PropConcentration 900 1. 2. 3. 300 0.613594 PropConcentration 0.624 0.572688 800 0.593 0.613594 0.531781 0.563 700 0.572688 0.490875 200 0.532 0.531781 0.449969 0.501 600 0.490875 0.409063 0.471 0.449969 0.440 0.368156 100 500 0.409 0.409063 0.32725 0.379 400 0.368156 0.286344 0.348 0.32725 0.245438 0 0.317 300 0.286344 0.204531 0.287 0.245438 0.256 0.163625 200 0.225 0.204531 0.122719-100 0.195 100 0.163625 0.0818125 0.122719 0.0409063 0 0.0818125 0.0409063-200 -100 Fracture Height (ft) 3280 ft 47 52 ft 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 HalfFractureLength(ft) Fracture Height (ft) -200-300 -400 3280 ft Injection Point Mid Sand Layers Modeled 14000 bbls Injected 0.85 psi/ft Stress Gradient 0 500 1000 1500 HalfFractureLength(ft) 2. 3. 4752 ft Injection Point Mid Sand Layers Not Modeled 13400 bbls Injected 0.81 psi/ft Stress Gradient Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 6

Pressure during Sequential Pumping Stress along Well due to Concurrent Parallel Fractures Concurrent Fractures 2000 Injected Fluid Atoka Injections 180 Bottomhole Pressure (PSI) 1500 1000 BHP 160 140 120 Pressure Increase due to Series Fractures Temp (f) New Fracture 500 Temp 100 Plugged Tip Zone 0 80 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 EPA Technical Workshop on H/F DC, March 10-11/2011 Time (min) Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 7

Stress Impact during multiple fracturing in a Horizontal Well Schematic Outer Fractures Inner Fractures From ARMA/USRMS 05-672 Multiple Intervals Single Interval Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 11

(V = 14000 bbls at 4 bpm & 3 ppg Solids) 80 ft 300 0.624 Various Created Fracture Geometries in Shales 0.593 0.563 Fracture Height (ft) 200 100 0-100 -200 0.532 0.501 0.471 0.440 0.409 0.379 0.348 0.317 0.287 0.256 0.225 0.195 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Half Fracture Length (ft) Simulated fracture using @FRAC,390 bbls Injected yers Modeled, t) Frame 001 08 Dec 2003 TerraFrac OutPut data Y (ft) 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 PropConcentration 0.613594 0.572688 0.531781 0.490875 0.449969 0.409063 0.368156 0.32725 0.286344 0.245438 0.204531 0.163625 0.122719 X (ft) 0.0818125 0 500 1000 1500 PropCon 0.55883 0.52326 0.48769 0.45212 0.41655 0.38098 0.34541 0.30984 0.27427 0.2387 0.20313 0.16756 0.13199 0.09642 0.06085 (2D) 26 Oct 1998 TerraFrac OutPut data Solid Particle Concentration after 13,400 bbls Injected (4752 ft Injection Point, Mid Layers not Modeled, Solids Consi cture Height (ft) 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 3. PropConc 0.613594 0.572688 0.531781 0.490875 0.449969 0.409063 0.368156 0.32725 0.286344 0.245438 0.204531 0.163625 0.122719 Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 12

Pressure Falloff Data Pressure Transient Theory is used to determine Reservoir Parameters from the measured Pressure Response (Flow Regimes) P T A - IF O T o ol Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 13

Conventional Pressure Transient Response Relies on pressure and derivative plots after shut-in to draw information about reservoir characteristics. Typical flow regimes such as wellbore storage, linear, and radial flow can be deduced from the plots. Different flow regimes can be observed by modification of the basic governing equations and the boundary conditions. Modifications include, for example, consideration of complications imposed by geometry, reservoir boundaries, porosity, mobility etc. Pictures: Courtesy of EPA and Schlumberger Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 14

Problem Configuration Olson, 2008 Elliptical coordinate of the water front ξ 0 = 0.5 X 0 Y 0 Xf fracture half-length Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 16

Regular fracture network After C. Economides SRV Extent PTA-IFO IDEALIZED MODEL Reservoir Volume >> SRV Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 17

PTA-IFO Conventional Methods of Analysis Method 1: Using Storage Dominated Flow Recognized by a straight line on the pressure vs. time plot. The slope of this linear part of pressure curve is equal to q/cf from which Fracture Storage Coefficient can be determined. From Cf, Fracture Length can be calculated, considering different fracture types (PKN, CGK, Elliptical). Method 2 : Using Linear Formation Flow Recognized by a straight line with a half slope on the log-log plot From semi-log analysis and using fluid and relative permeability data, the ratio {viscosity/(permeability*porosity*total compressibility)} can be calculated. From a plot of Pf vs. square root of time, the above ratio is related to flow and Fracture Dimensions (h*l) so that Fracture Length. Can be calculated. Method 3: Using late time Pseudo-Radial Flow Permeability of Inner and Outer Zones plus Mobility discontinuity can be determined Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 18

1000.0 100.0 Dp, dp/dlnt (psi) 10.0 Fixed fracture permeability pressure drop 1.0 Pressure derivative Stress-dependent fracture permeability 0.1 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Time (hr) (After Economidis and Ghassimi,) Conventional Pressure Transient Analyses for Fractured Wells Two typical models for a single vertical fracture: Infinite-Conductivity Vertical Fracture (ICVF) Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture (FCVF) Typical type curves does not show dramatic and sharp change in pressure and derivative plots. Slope of the type curve indicate different flow regimes (linear or bilinear flow) and fracture conductivity. Picture: Courtesy of Schlumberger Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 19

Technology Premise Pressure Transient Response in Multi-Fractured Vertical Wells The multiple fractures create a fracture network system that appears to mimic the signature of radial composite flow with more complexities. The inner zone has what appears to be an increased permeability that is brought about due to the elevated conductivity of the fracture network in comparison to the native formation permeability and mobility. Figure shows analyses of a multi-fractured injection well using a radial composite mode. The reasonable match, however, does not accurately reflect the system physics and fails to correctly provide the understanding of the fracture network makeup. 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 10-3 10-2 10-1 10 0 10 1 Delta-T (hr) Radial Composite Homogeneous Reservoir ** Simulation Data ** well. storage = 0.39474 BBLS/PSI Skin(mech.) = -4.1053 permeability = 2.4799 MD Perm.(inner) = 38.500 MD Stor.rto+x o/i = 0.034984 Inner Radius = 116.87 FEET Skin(Global) = -5.0419 Mobility+x o/i = 0.064412 Perm-Thickness = 148.79 MD-FEET Initial Press. = 6554.01 PSI Smoothing Coef = 0.,0. Cashiriari DCI Well Batch ENDWBS 2010/03/26-0729 : OIL Static-Data and Constants Volume-Factor = 1.000 vol/vol Thickness = 60.00 FEET Viscosity = 1.000 CP Total Compress =.1827E-04 1/PSI Rate = -4219. STB/D Storivity = 0.0002192 FEET/PSI Diffusivity = 179.0 FEET^2/HR Gauge Depth = N/A FEET Perf. Depth = N/A FEET Datum Depth = N/A FEET Analysis-Data ID: GAU001 Based on Gauge ID: GAU001 PFA Starts: 2010-03-26 00:00:15 PFA Ends : 2010-03-29 23:33:15 Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 20

Fracture Azimuth Fracture Height Fracture Length Current Limitations of Fracture Diagnostic Techniques Parameter Technique Limitation Parameter Technique Limitation Tracer logs Temperature logs Stress profiling P3D models Shallow depth of investigation: shows height only near the wellbore Difficult to interpret: shallow depth of investigation shows height only near wellbore Does not measure fracture directly: Must be calibrated with in-situ stress tests Does not measure fracture directly: estimates vary depending on which model is used P3D Models Well testing Microseismic Tiltmeters Length inferred, not measured: estimate s vary greatly depending on which model is used Large uncertainties depending upon assumptions and lack of pre-fracture well test data Optimally requires nearby offset well; difficult to interpret; expensive Difficult to interpret; expensive and difficult to conduct in the field Microseismic Optimally requires nearby offset well: difficult to conduct in the field Core techniques Expensive to cut core and run tests; multiple tests must be run to assure accuracy Tilt meters Difficult to interpret: expensive and difficult to conduct in the field Log Techniques Requires open hole logs to be run; does not work if natural fractures are not present Microsesmic Analysis intensive; expensive for determination of azimuth Tilt meters Useful only to a depth of 5000 ft; requires access to large area; expensive Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 21 (EPA 816-R-04-003 )

Pressure Transient Response for a Closing Fracture (Ideal Theoretical Type Curves, Single Vertical Fracture) Fracture closure is characterized by a sudden rapid change in pressure (determines the fracture closure pressure). Mixture of fracture storage flow and linear formation flow before closure. After closure, flow from the fracture into the formation will show a transition from linear formation flow to pseudo-radial flow. Fracture closure is characterized by a sharp peak Pictures: Courtesy of van den Hoek (SPE 77946) Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 22

PTA-IFO Fracture Characteristics Determination during DFIT Dimensionless Pressure 0.0001 0.00001 0.000001 x0=0.5 x0=1 x0=2 x0=3 x0=4 x0=5 Test Data 1 Test Data 2 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0000001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Dimensionless Time Method 1: Using Storage Dominated Flow Recognized by a straight line on the pressure vs. time plot. The slope of this linear part of pressure curve is equal to q/cf from which fracture storage coefficient can be determined. From Cf, fracture length can be calculated, considering different fracture types (PKN, CGK, elliptical). Method 2: Using Linear Formation Flow Before Fracture Closure Recognized by a straight line with a half slope on the loglog plot. Occurs for longer closure times where a combination of storage flow and linear formation flow takes place before fracture closure. Type curve matching and the use of an existing analytical expression gives the fracture storage coefficient from which fracture length can be calculated. Method 3 : Using Linear Formation Flow After Fracture Closure Recognized by a straight line with a half slope on the loglog plot. Occurs for short closure times. From semi-log analysis and using fluid and relative permeability data, the ratio {viscosity/(permeability*porosity*total compressibility)} can be calculated. From a plot of Pf vs. square root of time, the above ratio is related to flow and fracture dimensions (h*l). Method 4: Using late time Pseudo-Radial Flow Mobility discontinuity can be determined Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 24

@IPT and @IPTSH Data Input and Estimated Parameters All Data Input Parameters Estimated Using Conventional Analyses Methods Parameters Estimated Using Type-Curve Matching Injection Rate Permeability of the Inner zone Permeability of the Inner zone Volume Injected Fracture Storage Constant Fracture Storage Constant Fluid Compressibility Fracture Half Length Fracture Half Length Injection Fluid Viscosity Mobility Ratio Frcature Skin Reservoir Porosity Frcature Conductivity Formation Volume Factor Rate of Fracture Length Shrinkage Formation Height (Thickness) Injection Layer Stress Reservoir Poisson's Ratio Containment layer Stress Reservoir Young's Modulus Diffusivity Ratio Total Compressibility Mobility Ratio Mobility Ratio Permeability of the Outer zone Mobility Front, Elliptical Diffusivity Ratio Injection Layer Stress Fracture Storage Coefficient is related to Formation Elastic properties, and fracture Length and Height. Mobility is defined as the Ratio of Permeability to Fluid Viscosity, Mobility Ratio = Inner Zone Mobility/Outer Zone Mobility Diffusivity is defined as the Ratio of Mobility to (Porosity x Compressibility), Diffusivity Ratio = Inner/Outer Zone Diffusivity Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 25

Example Case Comparison between PIE and @IPT Plots Actual Field Record of a fractured Injector during Fall Off Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 26

PTA-IFO Type-Curve Matching Model Selection Infinite Conductivity-Dual Mobility Finite Conductivity-Single Mobility Finite Conductivity-Dual Mobility Fracture Types KGD PKN Elliptical Fracture Shrinkage Modes Height Shrinkage Only Length Shrinkage Only Combined Height and Length Shrinkage Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 27

Type-Curve Generation before Matching Method 1 Method 1: Using Storage Dominated Flow Fracture storage constant has been determined and Fracture Half Length has been estimated for three types of fracture geometry. Method 2 : Using Linear Formation Flow Data here does not clearly show linear flow; however, Fracture Half Length has been estimated for three types of fracture geometry. Method 3 : Using Radial Formation Flow Permeability of Inner Zone has been determined. Method 2 Method 3 Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 28

Using PTA during IFO to Estimate SRV 100000 100000 10000 Xf = 50ft Xf =100ft Xf = 50ft Xf =100ft Xf =200ft Xf =500ft Xf =200ft Xf =500ft 1000 10000 Xf =1000ft 10000 Xf =1000ft 100 10 Delta P, Delta P' (psi) 1000 Delta P, Delta P' (psi) 1000 1 100 100 0.1 10 0.01 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02 Delta t (hrs) Log-Log plot: p-p@dt=0 and derivative [psi] vs dt [hr] Delta t (hrs) Pressure and Pressure Derivative Plot Injectivity Model Fall-off Model Transient analysis of post injection pressure decline is used to develop a picture of the stimulated reservoir volume, and system structure and dynamics. Transient analysis will help define fracture geometry and the dominant system characteristics. Do boundaries exist? Are stimulated zones being created? Does the analyzed fracture penetrate into or through the stimulated zone and what does this mean in analyzing and describing the system? Once analysis has defined a model, pressure responses characteristic of different generated fracture lengths can be predicted and cross correlated during performance reviews. Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 34

Injection Assurance Platform (@SSURE) @SSURE provides secure cloud access between clients and field ops for surveillance Model Service Provision Microsoft Azure Site-to-Site VPN Field-to-Site Secure VPN @SSURE Remote Sensing Surveillance Field Performance Field-to-Tower/Satellite Secure Tunnel Secure Login Web Access Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 36

Concluding Remarks Cloud Computations are fast and inexpensive as well as connective Engineers can have effective real-time monitoring and simulation Fracture models have been advanced to provide efficient and realistic assessment of multiple concurrent fracturing of horizontal wells Pressure transient analysis of fall off data following fracture treatments or injection operations have been utilized The case of fractured injectors with closing and shrinkage fractures shows that significant geomechanical details may be obtained from the data A more direct methodology is proposed for the determination of stimulated Reservoir volume (SRV), if it exist. Water hammer effects provide potential for closer fracture assessment and would require further analysis which is underway. (HIT link) Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 38

Concluding Remarks (continue) Both the extent and the permeability elevation of the SRV are easily assessed from the PFO results. A measure of fracture length, height and containment stress contrast may be estimated closely, which helps is assessing fracture migration outside the target zone. Breaching, loss of containment and fluid migration must always be significant factors in job design and implementation. Assurance is a primary factor in stimulation via complete data collection, sophisticated modeling and live monitoring. Pressure transient tests have advanced and are currently successful for better identification of fractures. Multiple fractures in single wells must be designed with sufficient certainty and complexities and need close monitoring Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 39

Thank You Any Questions? Advantek International 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 190 Houston, Texas, 77063 713.532.7627 admin@advantekinternational.com www.advantekinternational.com Copyright 2015 Advantek Waste Management Services LLC. This material is private and confidential 40