SPE 152185

A Direct Comparison of Hydraulic Fracture Geometry and Well

Performance Between Cemented Liner and Open Hole Packer Completed
Horizontal Wells in a Tight Gas Reservoir
Murray Reynolds, P.Eng., SPE; Susan Thomson, P.Geoph., SPE; Faezeh Peyman, SPE; TAQA North Ltd.;
Allan Hung, Geoph IT; David Quirk, P.Eng., SPE; Shaoyuan Chen; Trican Well Service Ltd.

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 68 February 2012.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information 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 acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The Glauconitic formation is a Cretaceous age sandstone reservoir located across a large area of central Alberta,
Canada. Discovered in the late 1970s, hydraulically fractured vertical wells could produce commercial volumes
of natural gas from some of the higher permeability conventional sands. However, wide spread development of
the majority of the tight gas sands was not economic with vertical wells.
With the introduction of multiple fractured horizontal well (MFHW) technology in recent years, and much better
definition of the geology, a large unconventional resource play has developed in the Glauconitic, which could
contain in excess of 5 tcf of gas in place plus associated natural gas liquids (Scotia Capital, 2009).
A pilot project was designed to test the completion effectiveness between a cased and cemented liner and an
open hole packer system in this tight gas reservoir. Two vertical microseismic observation wells were located in
close proximity to two proposed horizontal wellbores, giving ideal conditions to test how the hydraulic fractures
would grow and the ultimate fracture geometry, from two different completion methods.
In this paper we will present the microseismic results of the pilot project, as well as the early production history
comparison between the two wells, and the hydraulic fracture effectiveness from a reservoir engineering aspect.
Introduction
A large unconventional resource play has developed around the Cretaceous aged Glauconitic formation in central
Alberta. A number of Operators are developing this liquids rich tight gas play using multiple fractured horizontal
well technology. While most horizontal wells completed to date have used open hole packer systems with ball
and sleeve fracture isolation technology, the completion effectiveness of this technique was uncertain in this
particular formation. A large vertical well population within the area presented an opportunity to use downhole
microseismic techniques to directly measure the hydraulic fracture growth from two off-setting horizontal wells.
Two vertical microseismic observation wells were located between two proposed horizontal wells with a mid-point
separation distance of approximately 600 m. Each horizontal well would have a horizontal reservoir exposure of
approximately 1,200 m, and be completed with 8 large hydraulic fracture treatments (approximate fracture
spacing of 170 m along the HZ well). One of the horizontal wells would be equipped with the open hole ball and
sleeve completion system, while the other would be equipped with a fully cemented liner in the horizontal section.
The latter well would use ported collars where fractures were desired, shifted open using coiled tubing.
(Ravensbergen, 2011).

SPE 152185

The effectiveness of the different completion systems would be evaluated using microseismic fracture diagnostic
monitoring techniques in combination with a 3 dimensional hydraulic fracture model. Post fracture production
testing and well performance would be integrated into the evaluation.
Background and Geology of the Glauconitic Formation
The Glauconitic formation of west central Alberta is a preserved barrier island depositional system. Modern
analogues would include the Texas gulf coast (Galveston Bay and Island) and the north shore of Prince Edward
Island in the Canadian Maritimes. The Glauconitic sands were deposited during the mid-Mannville of Lower
Cretaceous time and represents the maximum transgressive phase (high sea level) of the Mannville. This barrier
island complex has preserved all facies types associated with this depositional system, including preserved
barrier islands capped with linear aeolinites, tidal inlets and bays, subtidal channel sands, reworked intertidal
sands, aggrading windblown and current transported spits and back bay fluvial deltas. The most economically
important facies are the preserved barrier islands and to a lesser extent the tidal sands.
The barrier island trend runs in a southwest to northeast direction, from Ram River in the Alberta foothills in the
southwest to Westerose in the northeast, a distance of approximately 200 km (see map in Figure 1). The trend
continues at depth into the Rocky Mountains, where it is uplifted and outcrops. To the northeast the trend is
truncated by fluvial channels. The Barrier Island Trend consists of several large preserved barrier islands
separated from each other by mud and sand filled tidal inlets and bays. These separate islands lend themselves
to different Field or area names, as shown in Figure 1. A more detailed description of the geology may be found
in the paper by Chiang, 1985.
The zone increases in depth as it moves southwest into the Foothills of the Rocky Mountains. Depths in the
Westerose area are approximately 1,840 m; increasing to a depth of 3,450 m in the Deanne Field. The pore
pressure gradient also varies with location and depth, from slightly under pressured to water in the northeast
(8.5 kPa/m), to significantly over pressured in parts of the Foothills (16.1 kPa/m).
Total gross zone thickness varies between 15 m and 25 m; with porosities in the range of 6 to 15%. The water
saturation is believed to be sub-irreducible, in the range of 25 to 30%, and no significant formation water is
produced anywhere in the trend. A type log open hole log of the Glauconitic sands is shown in Figure 2.
Of particular interest to this project, are a series of regional coals which cap the Glauconitic sands the Medicine
River coals. The coals vary in thickness from approximately 0.5 m to 5 m, are areally extensive and are good
markers for geological mapping and correlations. There will be more discussion on this later, with respect to
hydraulic fracture height growth.
The play was initiated in the late 1970s with a series of vertical well discoveries in the Westerose area. This
initial phase of drilling targeted the higher permeability aeolionite facies capping the barrier island facies. Having
focused on the higher permeability aeolionite facies, an enormous resource was left behind in the other lower
barrier island sands. These tighter sands have been the focus of horizontal multiple fractured well drilling over the
last 3 years, particularly targeting the lower one third of the Barrier Island package (Figure 2). The expected insitu permeability to gas is in the range of 0.001 mD to 0.01 mD in the sands of current interest.
The produced natural gas has a specific gravity of approximately 0.70 and is rich in NGLs, with a liquid yield of
approximately 65 Bbl/MMcf.
Initial Hydraulic Fracture Design and Modeling
Prior to pumping the fracture treatment and recording the microseismic data, well and reservoir data was input
into a 3-dimensional hydraulic fracture simulator in order to determine the expected fracture geometry for the
planned pump schedule. The treatments pumped into both the cased well and open hole well were planned to be
very similar to each other in order to compare how using the different completion systems affected the productivity
of the wells. The designed fracture profile for the cased well can be seen in Figure 3 and for the open hole well in
Figure 4. Table 1 highlights the design treatment parameters and Table 2 highlights the results of the simulations.
Different logs from nearby vertical offset wells were used for each of the simulation runs, as different logs were
used, differences in stress contrasts between layers resulted. This difference is the primary reason for the
differences in the simulation results, especially fracture height, between the two wells. These vertical wells were
chosen in order to get log information below the horizontal wellbores being fractured.

SPE 152185

The fracture fluid system has been optimized through many years of experience in the Glauconitic sands. This
formation is known to be sensitive to water, probably through imbibition and phase trapping as the water
saturation is at sub irreducible conditions although swelling clays are present in variable amounts in certain
areas. Early fracture fluids were mainly Gelled Hydrocarbon systems, which cleaned up well and resulted in
longer effective hydraulic fracture half lengths. With larger fracture treatments required for access to the tighter
sands, costs of the hydrocarbon based systems became prohibitive.
With the introduction of Foamed Viscoelastic Surfactant (VES) based fracture fluids
based fracture fluids became a viable option for this formation (Oilfield Review, 1997).
consists of nitrogen at 70% quality, greatly reducing the amount of fluid placed in the
proven to cleanup extremely well in the Glauconitic, and is far more cost effective
systems.

in the late 1990s, water

The fracture fluid system
formation. This fluid has
than hydrocarbon based

Hydraulic fracture treatment sizes up to 100 tonnes of proppant have been pumped successfully into the
Glauconitic sands in vertical wells. For the MFHW, most Operators have optimized fracture sizing in the range of
40 to 60 tonnes of proppant per fracturing stage.
Microseismic Project Design Details
The project was designed to monitor an 8 stage fracture treatment for both the cased horizontal well and open
hole horizontal wells (operational issues reduced the cased well to 4 stages). The plan and depth view for
treatment and observation wells are seen in Figures 5 and 6. In the figures, the ports or perforation intervals for
each stage are marked by different colored ticks, and the packers are marked with black ticks.
The observation wells for the project are marked as Obs Well A and Obs Well B in the figure. An array of twelve
geophones was placed into each of these wells for the purposes of monitoring the fracture treatments. The
geophones were separated by 15 m interconnects for a total array aperture of 177 m in both observation wells.
Completion and Hydraulic Fracture Operational Details
Well completion operations were carried out simultaneously on the two wells, between March 14 and April 3,
2011. The 8 stage ball and sleeve fracture treatment was completed in a single day without issue.
The cased well experienced difficulty in getting fracture breakdown through the ported collars. Equipment was
pressure limited to 60 MPag at surface, and multiple pressure cycling, including acid, could not achieve
breakdown. A decision was made to abrasively cut the ports using the coiled tubing, then breakdown was
achieved and the fractures were placed as per design. The first four fracture treatments were completed in one
day. At this point, the bottom hole assembly on the coiled tubing parted, resulting in a short fishing job to recover
pieces of the tool. Advancing warm spring weather and soft lease conditions halted any further fracture treatments
on the cased well.
Microseismic Results
When monitoring the fracture treatments in the cased well, there were 566 microseismic events located from Obs
Well B, but no events located from Obs Well A. The 4 stages pumped were acquired with good quality and
quantity of events, so both fracture azimuth and geometry could be determined (seen in Figures 7 and 8). It may
be observed from Figure 7, transverse fractures were created with an azimuth of approximately N46E. The
fracture geometries observed from the events for these stages were summarized in Table 3.
It also can be seen from Figure 7 that the fractures in stages 1, 2 and 3 appeared to be asymmetric about the
wellbore toward the north-east. The asymmetry of stages 1 and 2 could have been caused by the bias to
recorded events closer to the observation well allowing the north-east fracture wing to be better imaged. The
asymmetry of stage 3 may have been caused by reservoir heterogeneity. The fractures of stage 4 were generally
symmetric about the wellbore.
When monitoring the fracture treatments in the open hole well, there were 528 microseismic events located from
Obs Well A and 6 microseismic events located from Obs Well B. These microseismic events were located in all
fracturing stages however only stages 3 to 7 had enough events to determine fracture azimuths and geometries
(seen in Figures 9 and 10). It is seen from Figure 9, transverse fractures were created with an azimuth about
N46E. The fracture geometries observed from the events for these stages were summarized in Table 4.

SPE 152185

It also may be seen from Figure 9 that fractures in stages 4 and 5 appeared to be asymmetric about the wellbore
toward the south-west. This was likely caused by the bias to recorded events closer to the observation well
allowing the south-west fracture wing to be better imaged. The fractures in the rest of the stages were generally
symmetric about the wellbore (Warpinski, 1996 and Wolhart, 2006).
Moment Magnitude of Microseismic Events
Two observation wells were required to comprehensively monitor the open hole well and the cased well. The size
of the microseisms generated by hydraulic fracturing in the Glauconitic formation was not large enough to be
detected by only one observation well. Microseismic signals get attenuated while traveling into the surrounding
rock formations. Microseismic signals which travel over long distances degrade to the point where they cannot be
correctly identified. As a result, events generated at greater distances away from the observation wells are either
not detected or will have greater location uncertainty. In addition, lower magnitude events attenuate faster than
larger magnitude events. As a result, the treatment stages closer to the observation well will appear to have a
higher density of events relative to the stages located further away. This denser cloud of microseismic events
comprises of a mix of low and high magnitude events. The microseismic cloud located further away will have a
larger portion of large magnitude events. All parameters being equal, an even distribution of various magnitude
events should exist along the wellbore, regardless of what is detectable by the observation well. Figures 11 and
12 are the magnitude-distance plots, showing the detection trend with distance (Zimmer, 2007).
Calibrated Fracture Model Discussion
Fracture modeling is normally based on some assumptions due to limited input data availability. The reservoir
properties, formation rock mechanical properties, well data quality and engineering experience are factors
affecting the modeling results. Mini fracture analysis and post fracture pressure match are conventional methods
to fine tune fracture models. To fine tune a fracture model a pressure match is performed on the treatment data.
This is typically a non unique solution as different fracturing engineers will have different fracture geometries for
the same pressure match. This is due to the number of variables that can be altered in a fracture simulator.
With the input of fracture geometry observed from microseismic monitoring, the fracture model calibration is
further refined. In this case, we have the benefit of knowing the fracture geometry from the microseismic project.
So, to create a calibrated fracture model, not only do we have to perform a pressure history match, but the
resulting geometry from that match in the fracture simulator must match the microseismic geometry as well. This
is a much more robust fracturing solution for further development in this formation and field (Warpinski, 2009;
Weijers, 2005; Mayerhofer, 2000).
Generally, the fracture treatments were pumped as per the design parameters outlined in Table 1. The only
difference was that the cased well experienced higher treating pressures on all stages and the downhole injection
3
3
rate was reduced to an average of 2.3 m /min from the planned 3.0 m /min. The matched fracture geometry
profiles for the open hole well and the cased well can be seen in Figures 13 and 14 respectively, with the matched
surface pressure charts shown in Figure 15 and 16.
Fracture Geometry Comparison Between Cased and Open Hole Wells
Figure 17 shows all of the microseismic events for both wells from the overhead view. A general observation
would be that the fractures were much more simple and planar from the cased well vs. the open hole well.
Measured event widths vary from 52 to 86 m for the cased well vs. 86 to 222 m for the open hole well. Multiple
fracture initiations and more complex fracturing appear to be occurring in the open hole well and not in the cased
hole well. An observation from Stage #4 in the open hole well (brown dots) suggests there are at least 4 parallel
fracture liniments present over the length along the HZ wellbore of 222 m. A consequence of the multiple fracture
initiations is much shorter fracture half length from the open hole well (avg. 110 m vs. 175 m for the cased well).
The importance of deep penetrating fractures in a tight gas reservoir cannot be emphasized enough. The shorter
fracture half lengths will reduce well productivity and ultimately reserves recovery, due to a smaller drainage area.
The calibrated fracture models also show a significant difference in fracture geometry between the open hole and
cased wells (Figure 13 and 14). One finding was the difference in fracture height growth (68 m for the open hole
and 28 m for the cased well). For wells located in close proximity, this was quite surprising. We attribute this
difference to differences in the rock properties in the overlying coals and shaly section, where bedding slippage or
blunting of the fracture tip may occur when a coal or other heterogeneity is encountered. As mentioned earlier,

SPE 152185

the overlying coal thickness and properties can be quite variable. The high leakoff and rock mechanical
properties of coals tend to reduce or stop fracture propagation. A bedding plane sliding at an interface, causing
blunting of the fracture tip has been observed in many areas as a mechanism for containment of vertical fracture
growth (Daneshy, 2009; Barree, 2010; Gu, 2008). This situation may also result in T-shaped or horizontal
component fractures at the bedding plane interface. It may be possible to look at changes in polarity of the
waveforms from individual microseismic events to ascertain whether the propagating fracture has changed its
orientation, but this sort of study has not been undertaken with this dataset. If a significant horizontal fracture
component exists in the cased hole well, it would help explain the higher fracture pressures observed in the cased
hole well when compared to the open hole well (Maxwell, 2007).
NOTE: The geophones in Obs Well A were located slightly above the zone of interest, whereas, in Obs Well B the
geophones straddled the zone of interest. This may introduce a slight error in event locations in the vertical
direction for the open hole well, but would not account for the large amount of height difference observed.
While mini fractures were not performed on any fracture stages on these wells, the open hole well required an
increased transverse storage coefficient in the model (to get a pressure match), which may support multibranched fractures in addition to the primary fracture. After shut-in a higher leakoff was observed, which may
support connection with the coals cleat system. This high leakoff was not observed from the cased hole well,
which was more vertically contained.
The pressure matched fracture models and the observations from the microseismic confirmed significantly
different fracture geometries between the open hole and cased wells. The cased well fractures were of simpler,
planar geometry with much longer fracture half lengths.
Fracture Cleanup / Early Production Data
The surface location where both horizontal wells were located had a pipeline installed to the lease edge while
drilling operations were underway. Once the nitrogen concentration dropped below 30%, the gas could be sent
down the pipeline to the processing plant. This minimized flaring while cleaning up and testing the wells.
After hydraulic fracturing operations were completed at both wells, a short cleanup period followed with the wells
flowing up the 114.3 mm casing string. The 60.3 mm production tubing strings were then snubbed into the wells.
Each well had a complete test unit installed, with detailed recording of the test conditions.
During the initial 21 day cleanup / flow period, the open hole well produced at a gas rate of approximately
3 3
85 10 m /d with a flowing tubing head pressure (FTHP) of 3,950 kPag. At the same time, the cased well
produced at a gas rate of approximately 55 103m3/d at a FTHP of 4,100 kPag. Both wells were producing
significant volumes of fracture load fluid during this time period. The wells were then shut-in for approximately 2
weeks with pressure recorders landed downhole to record the pressure buildup data.
Both wells were placed on production on May 19, 2011. Pipeline capacity issues caused some significant down
time for the cased well, during the early production period. The production graphs (Cartesian scale) over the first
3.5 months for each well are shown in Figures 18 (open hole) and 19 (cased hole). The initial gas rate for the
open hole well was approximately 90 103m3/d vs. 60 103m3/d for the cased hole well. After 3.5 months, the open
hole well was producing at a gas rate of 37 103m3/d at a FTHP of 1,300 kPag, while the cased well was producing
at a gas rate of 25 103m3/d at a FTHP of 1,200 kPag. After 3.5 months of production, the open hole well had
shown a higher decline rate than had the cased hole well. In terms of production rate per fracture after 3.5
months, the open hole well was producing 4.6 103m3/d, vs. the cased hole well at 6.25 103m3/d, or a difference of
36%. It should be noted that both wells were still declining slightly at the end of this period, indicating the flow
regime was still in the fracture dominated portion of the decline.
The cumulative gas production over 130 days (including the cleanup period), the open hole well had produced
7,551 103m3 of gas vs. 4,782 103m3 for the cased hole well. On a per fracture basis, this is a difference of
approximately 27% in favor of the cased hole well. This conclusion goes against the conclusions of at least one
other comparative study between cased hole and open hole MFHW completions in a tight gas field (Edwards,
2010).

SPE 152185

PTA and RTA Reservoir Analysis Results

In an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of the fracture treatments in the different well types, both Pressure
Transient Analysis (PTA) and Rate Transient Analysis (RTA) techniques were used. These methods have proven
to be valuable in resolving hydraulically created vs. effective fracture half lengths, as well as assisting in the
fracture optimization process, in conjunction with other diagnostic methods, such as microseismic (Cipolla, 1998
and 2008; Barree, 2003).
Following a short cleanup period post fracture, both wells had the production tubing snubbed in and tandem
pressure recorders landed downhole. Both wells were flowed on an extended cleanup test for 3 weeks, followed
by a 2 week shut-in for pressure buildup. The buildups were analyzed, with a summary of the results shown in
Table 5. Pressure depletion of approximately 3,100 kPa was observed in the open hole well, while the cased hole
well was at near virgin pressure. An older vertical well was located approximately 500 m east of the open hole
well, which may have been responsible for the depletion. The horizontal radial flow regime was not observed
during either buildup, so test results were not considered to be accurate. However, there was some evidence of
effective fracture half length in the cased hole well, which was not observed in the open hole well.
The wells were both placed on production under normal pipeline flowing conditions, and rate and flowing pressure
data was gathered using a SCADA system. After approximately 110 days of production, the data was analyzed
using RTA software in an attempt to determine the reservoir permeability and effective fracture half lengths. The
summary results of this analysis are shown in Table 6, and Figures 20 and 21. Due to the very low matrix
permeability observed, boundary dominated flow was not reached. While a satisfactory history match was
achieved, there are non-unique solutions related to effective fracture half length, fracture conductivity, and matrix
permeability (Cipola, 2008) Results of this analysis should be used with caution.
NOTE: Throughout this analysis, the assumption was that all flow was from the fractures and the open hole
made no contribution. The assumed drainage area for all cases was 1/3 section.
While the analysis indicated a short effective fracture half length of 11 m for both wells, the skin factor for the
cased well was lower, indicating slightly more effective stimulation treatments. The average matrix permeability
was similar for both wells, in the high microDarcy range.
To understand the affect of the reservoir pressure differences on well productivity, a sensitivity case was run on a
hypothetical well with identical reservoir parameters, run at the two observed reservoir pressures. This analysis
could account for 25% of the rate difference between the two wells, vs. the actual observed 36% incremental on a
per fracture basis (3.5 month rate). Therefore, the cased well was producing at higher gas rates per fracture,
once the reservoir pressure differences were accounted for.
The RTA will be repeated in the future after more flow time, and we expect the analysis may give a more accurate
estimate of the effective fracture half lengths after boundary dominated flow conditions are reached.
Conclusions
Based upon multiple technical analysis techniques used, we make the following conclusions from this study:
1) The fractures initiated from the cased well were much simpler and planar vs. the open hole well. More
complex and multiple fracture initiations came from the open hole well. We believe natural planes of
weakness and minor fissuring in the open hole section would be the likely cause of the multiple initiation
points.
2) The simpler fractures created in the cased well resulted in significantly longer created fracture half lengths
(175 m vs. 110 m).
3) Fracture heights were quite different between the two HZ wells in close proximity, a surprising finding.
We attribute this to differences in the rock mechanical properties of the overlying coals, with possible
bedding plane slippage blunting the fracture height growth in the fractures in the cased hole well.
4) The early production histories suggest that on a per fracture basis the 3.5 month gas rate was 36% higher
and the cumulative gas recovered was 27% higher for the cased hole well. The open hole well also had a
higher rate of decline during this period. We believe this data supports the more complex fracturing, and
shorter created fracture half lengths observed in the open hole well.
5) After accounting for the observed reservoir pressure differences, the gas rate per fracture was
approximately 11% better for the cased hole well (after 3.5 months of production).

SPE 152185

6) Both PTA and RTA indicated significantly shorter effective fracture half lengths for both wells, vs. the
hydraulically created half lengths observed from microseismic and calibrated 3-D modeling work.
7) While the rate transient analysis may have some non-unique solutions, it does indicate slightly more
effective stimulation treatments in the cased hole well vs. the open hole well.
8) We expect on-going production data analysis over the next 1 to 2 years will better define the actual
effective fracture half lengths.
9) Multiple diagnostic and reservoir analysis techniques have proven to be complimentary in understanding
the hydraulic fracture placement and performance, and will assist in future fracture optimization efforts.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the management of TAQA North Ltd. and Trican Well Service Ltd. for their
support and permission to publish this paper. We would also like to recognize Bruce Taylor and Mary Downey of
TAQA North Ltd. for their contributions to the Background and Geology section.
References
Barree, R., et al: Closing the Gap: Fracture Half Length From Design, Buildup, and Production Analysis; SPE
84491, presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, October 2003.
Barree, R. et al; Evidence of Strong Fracture Height Containment Based on Complex Shear Failure and
Formation Anisotropy; SPE 134142, presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence,
Italy, September 2010.
Cipolla, C. et al; Understanding Fracture Performance by Integrating Well Testing and Fracture Modeling; SPE
49044, presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, September 1998.
Cipolla, C. et al; Resolving Created, Propped, and Effective Hydraulic Fracture Length; SPE 129618, presented at
the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala Lampur, December 2008.
Chiang, K.; The Giant Hoadley Gas Field, South Central Alberta; in J.A. Masters, ed., Elmworth Case Study of a
Deep Basin Gas Field; American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 38, pp 297 313, 1985.
Daneshy, A.; Factors Controlling the Vertical Growth of Hydraulic Fractures; SPE 118798, presented at the
Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands,TX, January 2009.
Edwards, W., et al; Tight Gas Multi-stage Horizontal Completion Technology in the Granite Wash; SPE 138445,
presented at the Tight Gas Completions Conference, San Antonio, TX, November 2010.
Gu, H. et al; Hydraulic Fracture Modeling with Bedding Plane Interfacial Slip; SPE 117445, presented at the
Eastern Regional / AAPG Eastern Section Joint Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, October 2008.
Mayerhofer, M. et al; East Texas Hydraulic Fracture Imaging Project: Measuring Hydraulic Fracture Growth of
Conventional Sandfracs and Waterfracs; SPE 63034, presented at the Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 2000.
Maxwell, S. C. et al; Evidence of a Horizontal Hydraulic Fracture at Depth Due to Stress Rotations Across a
Thrust Fault; SPE 110696, presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, CA,
November 2007.
Oilfield Review, Clear Fracturing Fluids for Increased Well Productivity, pp 20 33, Autumn 1997.
Ravensbergen, J.; Cased Hole Multistage Fracturing: A New Coiled Tubing Enabled Completion; SPE 143250,
presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands,
TX, April 2011.
Scotia Capital; Bonavista Acquisition Focuses Spotlight on the Hoadley Glauconite Play, Oil & Gas Resource Play
Spotlight, August 20, 2009.
Warpinski, N.; Microseismic Monitoring: Inside and Out; JPT pp 80 85, November 2009.

SPE 152185

Warpinski et al; Microseismic Mapping of the B-Sand Hydraulic Fracture Experiment at the DOE/GRI Multi-Site
Project; SPE 36450, presented at Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, 1996.
Weijers et al.; Developing Calibrated Fracture Growth Models for Various Formations and Regions Across the
United States; SPE 96080, presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October
2005.
Wolhart et al; Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostics Used to Optimize Development in the Jonah Field; SPE 102528,
presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, 2006.
Zimmer et al; Microseismic Monitoring Quality-Control (QC) Reports as an Interpretative Tool for Nonspecialists;
SPE 110517, presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, CA, November 2007.

Tables

Table 1 - Fracture Treatment Design Parameters

Fluid System

Cased Well

Open Hole Well

Surfactant N2 Foam

Surfactant N2 Foam

Pump Rate

3.0 m /min

3.0 m3/min

Proppant Type

20/40 sand

20/40 sand

Proppant Tonnage

60 tonne

Proppant Concentration

60 tonne

100 to 600 kg/m

100 to 600 kg/m3

Table 2 - Fracture Treatment Simulation Results

Cased Well

Open Hole Well

396m

396m

Created Fracture
Length
Fracture Height
Average Proppant
Concentration

50m

36m

1.5 kg/m2

1.8 kg/m2

Average Fracture Width

5.2mm

6.0mm

Table 3 - Cased Well Fracture Geometries from Microseismic

Stage

Fracture
Azimuth

Half Fracture
Length (m)

Fracture
Height (m)

MS Event Width
(m)

N46E

176

28

52

N46E

198

33

84

N45E

174

34

86

N45E

160

21

74

Average

N45.5E

177

29

74

SPE 152185

Table 4 Open Hole Well Fracture Geometries from Microseismic

Stage

Fracture
Azimuth

Half Fracture
Length (m)

Fracture
Height (m)

MS Event Width
(m)

N44E

116

96

108

N46E

114

90

222

N46E

118

88

133

N46E

111

78

96

N45E

99

76

86

Average

N45E

112

86

129

Table 5 Pressure Transient Test Results Summary

P (kPaa)
Cased Hole
17627
Open Hole
14519

kx (mD)
0.001
0.005

PTA result
ky (mD) kz (mD)
Xf (m)
0.003
0.07
12
0.1
0.04
n/a

s
-0.5
-2.4

Leff (m)
315
375

Table 6 Rate Transient Analysis Results Summary

P (kPaa)
Cased Hole
17627
Open Hole
14519

kx (mD)
0.01
0.01

RTA result
ky (mD) kz (mD) Xf (m)
0.007
0.008
11
0.008
0.008
11

Figures

Figure 1 Glauconitic Geological Map (from Chiang, 1985)

Fcd
8
8

s
-1.2
0.2

Leff (m)
550
1179

10

Figure 2 Glauconitic Zone Type Log

Figure 3 - Design Fracture Profile for the Cased Well

SPE 152185

SPE 152185

Figure 4 - Design Fracture Profile for the Open Hole Well

Figure 5 - Well Configuration Plan View

11

12

Figure 6 - Well Configuration Depth View

Figure 7 - All Events, Cased Well Plan View

SPE 152185

SPE 152185

Figure 8 - All Events, Cased Well Depth View

Figure 9 - All Events, Open Hole Well Plan View

13

14

Figure 10 - All Events, Open Hole Well Depth View

Figure 11 Areal Microseismic Detection Plot

SPE 152185

SPE 152185

Figure 12 Microseismic Magnitude vs. Distance Plot

Figure 13 - Matched Fracture Geometry for the OH Well

15

16

Figure 14 - Matched Fracture Geometry for the Cased Well

Figure 15 Model Pressure Match for OH Well (Stage 8)

SPE 152185

SPE 152185

Figure 16 Model Pressure Match for Cased Well (Stage 2)

Figure 17 All Microseismic Events

17

SPE 152185

Gas Rate (e3m3/d) Hours on Prod

18

120

30

100

25

80

20

60

15

40

10

20

Gas Produced Gross (e3m3/d)

Hours On Prod

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Days On Prod

Gas Rate (e3m3/d) Hours on Prod

Figure 18 Open Hole Well Production History

120

30

100

25

80

20

60

15

40

10

20

0
0

20

40

60
Days on Prod

Figure 19 Cased Well Production History

80

100

120

Gas Produced Gross (e3m3/d)

Hours On Prod

SPE 152185

Figure 20 Open Hole Well RTA Analysis Match Results

Figure 21 Cased Well RTA Analysis Match Results

19