URTeC: 1934952

An Integrated Approach to Development Optimization in Seven

Generations Kakwa Liquids Rich Montney Play
Ron Schmitz, Glen Nevokshonoff, and Steve Haysom
Seven Generations Energy Ltd.

Copyright 2014, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) DOI 10.15530/urtec-2014-1934952

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 so 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 prohibite d.

Introduction
The Montney depositional fairway stretches over approximately 55,000 square miles from north-east British
Columbia to north-west Alberta. To the west the Montney formation is exposed and outcrops within the Rocky
Mountain chain, while to the east it sub-crops, at depth, where it was eroded during the late Jurassic and early
Cretaceous periods.
The Alberta deep basin Montney has emerged in the last few years as one of the continents top unconventional
resource plays. The operator holds a significant acreage position in the Alberta deep basin, over-pressured, liquidsrich Montney play. This contiguous Montney land position is unique as it has produced prolific rates of gas and
associated free liquids, dominantly condensate.
Historically the Montney in this area had been assessed using traditional conventional evaluation techniques, and
thus had been over-looked for decades. Unconventional evaluation and development technology improvements,
chiefly horizontal multi-stage fracture stimulation techniques, have allowed the operator and industry competitors to
unlock the vast hydrocarbon potential that the Alberta unconventional Montney holds. The prolific rates of gas and
associated free liquids are the result of a combination of unique geological/reservoir properties and
completion/drilling techniques.
Approach to Unconventional Development
The approach that the operator took to the development of its unconventional resource play at Kakwa is shown
schematically on Figure 1. It started with the idea or concept phase, i.e., that there might be potential for the
Montney to be developed in the Kakwa area using horizontal wells with multi-stage fracs. This involved the
development of a basic geological model that outlined the potential areal extent and resource contained within the
selected area. From there, it progressed to stage 2, which involved the drilling and completion in vertical wells, to
demonstrate that hydrocarbon production was possible. Subsequent to this, stage 3 included the drilling and multistage frac completion of the first horizontal well which, although it is likely not to be commercial in its own right,
demonstrated that there might be commercial potential in the resource. The next 2 stages 4a and 4b, were conducted
more or less in parallel, which involved drilling sufficient wells to delineate the size of the potentially commercial
resource, and refined the well design (both drilling and completion) to an extent sufficient to provide a high
confidence that the resource was commercial resource. Once sufficient delineation drilling, completions, and testing
work had been done to establish commerciality the focus turned more toward full development and optimization in
stage 5, in order to maximize the value of the asset, on a discounted cash flow basis. Drilling and completion
optimization was (and usually is, in the early stages of filed development) one of the most important areas within

URTeC 1934952

these value maximization efforts. From a high level perspective, the drilling and completion optimization work
done to date has focused on:
1.
2.
3.

Reducing the drilling cost per metre of lateral;

Reducing the completion cost per unit of production; and,
Optimizing lateral spacing/placement.

3. Demonstrate

4a. Commercialize

Commercial,
refining
value stage

High cost capital

2. Test

4b. Delineate

5. Develop & Optimize

Low cost
capital

Pre-commercial, establishing value stage

1. Idea

Simplified Schematic of the Steps in

Figure
1 Simplified
Schematic
of the Steps
Establishing,
Refining
and Realizing the Value of a Resource Play
Establishing,
Refining
and Realizing
theinValue
of a Resource
Play

Montney Formation Geological Overview

The Montney Formation is a sedimentary wedge that was deposited on the western margin of the exposed North
American craton during earliest Triassic time, 232-245 millions of years ago. The Montney depositional fairway
stretches over approximately 55,000 square miles from north-east British Columbia to north-west Alberta. To the
west the Montney formation is exposed and outcrops within the Rocky Mountain chain, while to the east it subcrops where it was eroded during the late Jurassic and early Cretaceous periods. The entire sedimentary wedge dips
from the NE to the SW, and is deepest in NW Alberta, east of the Rocky Mountains disturbed belt. The Montney
unconformably overlies the Permian Belloy formation and is unconformably overlain by Triassic to Cretaceous
sediments (west to east). The formation ranges from less than 1-metre in thickness at the easterly sub-crop, to over
350m to the west.
The Montney sequence can generally be divided into two main depositional systems, one dominated by proximal
shoreface deposits (to the east) and the other dominated by distal deposits (to the west). These depositional systems
are controlled by their relative position to the paleo-submarine shelf edge that runs through the middle of the
Montney fairway from the SE to the NW [Figure 2].
Proximal Montney deposits, east of the paleo-geographic shelf, are dominated by shoreface sandstones, dolomitized
coquinas, and lower shoreface siltstones [Figure 2]. These lithologies form the porous and permeable conventional
Montney oil and gas reservoirs of Alberta and British Columbia, exploited since the early 1960s. Distal deposits, to

URTeC 1934952

the west of the paleo-geographic shelf, consist of storm-dominated siltstones and shales [Figure 2]. These lithologies
are commonly inter-bedded and disrupted by frequent turbidite deposits of coarser-grained siltstone and minor
sandstones sourced from shoreface-proximal deposits to the east, as described above [Figure 3].
In west central Alberta, the Montney Formation is characterized by proximal and distal storm dominated shoreface
with southwesterly-dipping clinoform turbidite deposits within paleo-topographic lows.

Figure 2 Montney Facies (Canadian Discovery & GDGC (2008), modified by 7G)

The Montney is a well-established producing horizon for both oil and gas throughout western Alberta and
northeastern British Columbia. In recent years horizontal drilling technology and multi-stage fracturing of horizontal
wells have allowed for significant additional development of the Montney Formation beyond the confines of the
conventionally trapped pools that were commercially exploitable with vertical wells. Initially, unconventional
Montney exploration and production from tighter Montney lithologies was confined to north-east British Columbia,
where it is shallower. Recent successful drilling for unconventional Montney reservoirs in Alberta shows that the
Montney production fairway follows the over-pressure edge and extends south and east from Dawson and Swan in
British Columbia, across into Alberta, down through the Elmworth, Wapiti, Karr, Kakwa and into Resthaven fields
[Figure 4].
Greater Kakwa Area Montney Geology
In most of the greater Kakwa area the Montney formation is unconformably overlain by the Doig formation and
unconformably overlies the Belloy [Figure 5]. In the region between the underlying Gold Creek and Simonette
Devonian highs the Montney is thicker. Where the Montney overlies the Devonian reefs it tends to be thinner, as
more accommodation space is available in the saddle between these two reef systems. Between the reefs, the
Montney averages approximately 200 metres in thickness and dips basin-ward from the NE to the SW. The top of
the Montney ranges from 2800 to over 3500 metres in true vertical depth from surface. The 200-metre sequence is
divided up into 2 main Montney intervals, each approximately 100 metres in thickness; the Lower; and, the Upper
[Figure 5]. These intervals consist of shale, siltstone and fine-grained sandstones that were deposited in deeper water
environments off of the main Montney shelf edge.

URTeC 1934952

SE

At Kakwa course grained

sediment is transported from
the shelf into large depocentres

Thicker Montney as deposition

of silts and sands
accommodated between
Devonian reefs

Within the Unconventional Deep Basin the Montney is dominantly a siltstone with interbedded shale

NW
Figure 3 Montney Depositional Environment (website http://jddy.wikispaces.com/what+environment modified by 7G)

Greater Kakwa Area

Figure 4 Montney pressure regime (Canadian Discovery & GDGC (2008) modified by 7G)

The Upper Montney: The Upper Montney is approximately 100 metres in thickness throughout the Greater Kakwa
area. This interval contains sediments dominated by fine-to-coarse-grained silts and fine-grained sands with minor
inter-bedded shale. Grain-size within the Upper Montney tends to be coarser-grained than those within the Lower
Montney interval. Sedimentation in the Upper interval was dominated by massive sequences of storm deposits and
turbidities, more proximal to the Montney shelf edge, when compared to the distal Lower Montney interval.

URTeC 1934952

The Lower Montney: The Lower Montney interval is approximately 100 metres thick. It is dominated by interbedded shales/mudstones and fine-grained siltstones. Generally this 100-metre sequence has higher clay and total
organic carbon content than the Upper Montney. TOC generally averages 0.5% to 1.5%. A marker is located at the
top of the Lower Montney that can be correlated regionally. Over the broader area, turbidites up to 10-metres in
thickness can be found throughout the Lower Montney interval.

Figure 5 Kakwa Area Type Log: depth in metres (Analysis by Ross Crain)

Reducing the drilling cost per metre of lateral

Longer laterals
The basic underlying premise in the operators approach to drilling optimization has been that well productivity is
linearly proportional to lateral length. This assumption was originally based on some early industry surveillance
work done by the operator and, generally speaking, the operators experience to date indicates that this remains a
reasonable assumption for Montney wells in the Kakwa area. Given this assumption, the focus of the drilling
optimization work to date has not been to reduce the drilling cost per well; rather it has been to reduce the drilling
cost per metre of lateral in the well. This is an important distinction, because it changes the approach significantly.
Figure 6 illustrates that the cost to drill a Montney horizontal well in the Kakwa area is roughly a straight line
function of lateral length, with a y intercept equal to the cost of drilling to 90 degrees (in actual fact, the costs would
start to curve up slowly as a function of lateral length, at longer lateral lengths, but this approximation is quite
reasonable for the lengths drilled to date). Using the straight line approximation shown in Figure 6, the cost per
metre of lateral drilled can be calculated, and is shown in the dotted overlying curve. As can be seen from this
curve, the cost per metre of lateral starts at infinity, at zero metres of lateral, and curves asymptotically downward as
lateral length increases. Using this logic, the operator is currently targeting lateral lengths approaching 3,000 metres
as part of its strategy to minimize drilling costs because:
1.

The cost per metre curve is approaching the minimum at this lateral length;

URTeC 1934952

2.

The risks of drilling further tend to outweigh the incremental cost per metre reductions after this point.

Figure 6 Drilling costs model

Pad Drilling
In addition to the focus on extended reach drilling, the operator has moved largely to pad drilling in its core area.
Pad drilling saves both time and money for several reasons: reduced lease construction cost per well, reduced rig and
equipment move costs, and general efficiency gains from centralizing services. Pad drilling also results in savings in
facilities, infrastructure costs, and reducing our surface and environmental impacts, although that is beyond the
focus of this paper. Further given the high liquid gas ratios the wells require artificial lift early in and for the most
of their lives. Therefore close proximity of the well heads facilitates liquid separations and re-injection of raw gas
for gas lift.
Drilling Technology
On the technology front, the operator has tested numerous technologies and approaches to reduce drilling times and
costs.
In order to narrow in on the potential reductions from different technologies and approaches, as well as to monitor
the progress in achieving those reductions, the drilling process was subdivided into four distinct sections:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Surface hole;
Intermediate section;
Build section; and
Lateral leg.

Figures 7 through 10 and table 1 list the reductions achieved by section (comparing the best well to date to the first
well drilled), the technologies being used to achieve these reductions, and the technologies tested that are not being
used on a go forward basis. Figure 11 illustrates the overall progress to date in reducing the drilling costs.

URTeC 1934952

Figure 7&8 respectively Drilling results to date surface hole; Drilling results to date intermediate section

Figure 9 & 10 respectively Drilling results to date build section; Drilling results to date lateral section

URTeC 1934952

8
Technologies/Approaches

Well Section
Surface hole

Using; Go Forward

1. Larger drill pipe

2. Computerized stick slip mitigation
3. Automated tool face control
1. Aggressive build rates (10-12
deg/30m)
Build section
2. Specialized/hybrid bits
3. Managed pressure drilling
1. Larger drill pipe
2. Computerized stick slip mitigation
3. Automated tool face control
4. Managed pressure and under
Lateral (2300 m comparison) balance drilling
5. Specialized brine (Reduced torque
and drag)
6. Reduced geosteering
7. Extended reach (3000 m)

Tested; Not Being Used Go Forward

Drilling Days

First Well
1.6

Best Well to Date

1.2

Savings
0.4

9.0

5.6

3.4

9.0

3.7

5.3

32.0

12.5

19.5

51.6

23.0

28.6

Intermediate section

1. Monobore well design

1. Rotary steerable
2. Normal brine systems

1. Natural gas fuel

2. Pad drilling

Other

TOTAL

Table 1 Drilling technologies summary

Figure 11 7G Kakwa drilling costs to date in chronological order

Reducing Completion Cost per Tonne of Proppant

Pad Operations
Much as it does for drilling, pad development offers cost efficiencies for completions, as a result of reduced
equipment move and set up costs, as well as the ability to benefit from larger scale/centralized approaches to water
storage, proppant storage, etc.
Up to this point the majority of fracs completed at Kakwa have utilized a nitrogen foam based recipe. However
the operator has completed a limited number of fracs utilizing other designs (i.e., slick water, gel based, hesitation
fracs). The results to date with N2 foam have been excellent, thus the impetus to change the frac design has been

URTeC 1934952

limited. The operator continues to review the data from wells completed with the alternative fracture stimulation
designs, and will continue optimize completions.
Frac Size
Figure 12 illustrates that, much like drilling, completion costs can be approximated by a straight line equation that
relates completion costs to tonnes of proppant used in the frac. This results in a slope of roughly $1,000/tonne
proppant (depending on the actual frac design in question). The cost per tonne from this completion cost model
curves downward as the total tonnage of proppant increases, indicating that larger fracs, and/or multiple well fracs
from the same pad site, yields reduced costs, on a $/tonne proppant basis. Figure 13 shows the overall progress to
date in reducing the completion costs.

Figure 12 Completion costs model

Figure 13 Completion costs to date in chronological order

URTeC 1934952

10

Pad 2 Proppant Loading Test

In terms of reducing the costs of completion per unit of production, the main focus to date has been on frac size,
measured on a tonnes of proppant per metre of lateral basis. The operators experience to date generally indicated
that larger fracs perform better but, until recently, there was no side by side comparison data to validate this
hypothesis. However, two wells were recently drilled in opposite directions from the same pad location (see Figure
14). One of the wells was fracture stimulated with 0.67 tonnes proppant/m lateral, while the other well was fracture
stimulated with 1.32 tonnes/m lateral. Figures 15 through 17 compare the cumulative well head liquid production,
gas production, and BOE (20:1) production to date for these wells. While it is still very early in the life of these
wells, (these figures indicate that one of the wells has produced for 60 days and one has produced for 100 days), the
well with the larger frac is clearly more productive to date, with respect to both well head liquid and gas (~25%
better on a BOE basis) production.
Given that our data and experience to date appears to indicate that larger fracs result in better production there is not
yet sufficient data to define the exact relationship between frac sizes and productivity. Thus it is reasonable to
conclude that both larger individual fracs, as well as multiple well fracs on a pad, will be more cost effective on a
cost per unit of production basis.

Figure 14 Pad 2 frac size test layout

URTeC 1934952

11

Figure 15 Pad 2 frac size test well head liquids* production comparison (*Well head liquid is mostly condensate with some C2-C4 in liquid
phase due to high pressures during flow back. Does not include plant extracted C5+).

Figure 16 & 17 respectively Pad 2 frac size test gas production comparison; Pad 2 frac size test BOE (20:1) production comparison

Optimizing Lateral Spacing/Placement

One of the most important questions to answer as early as possible in the development cycle of an unconventional
play, such as the Kakwa River project, relates to the optimum spacing between laterals, both aerially across the
acreage, and vertically within the reservoir section. The operator has drilled wells on spacings that range from 4
wells/section (400 m spacing between laterals) to 10 wells/section (160 m spacing between laterals), but only a
small number of these wells have been on production for any reasonable length of time.
Pad 8 Spacing Test
Figure 18 shows the lateral placement for the first spacing test on Pad 8. This illustrates that, in addition to a single
well that had already been producing at that site for more than a year, four horizontal wells can be analyzed (two of
which are bounded by outside wells) where they are spaced at 320 m and 400 m between the lateral sections of the
wells. Data gathering efforts for the spacing tests included:
1.

Monitoring of offset well pressure during the fracture stimulations;

URTeC 1934952

2.
3.
4.

12

Injection of liquid tracers in the toe fracs of all wells to determine if their wellbores were open to flow;
Liquid tracer injection along the length of well # 2 to check communication with offset wells; and
Monitoring of production performance to compare inter-well responses (production & pressure) and to the
production performance of the original well (drilled do the NW -> Figure 18).

Figure 18 Pad 8 spacing test layout

The frac program for Pad 8 involved opening the toe ports and monitoring pressures on all wells, fracing wells 2 and
3, and alternating between them. The data shows that, only the toe sections of wells 1 and 4 were open to pressure
communication during the fracs on wells 2 and 3. Figure 19 summarizes the pressure communication noted, i.e. the
toe port of well #1 indicated pressure communication from stages 1, 2, and 3 of well #2, as well as from stage 2 of
well #3. Well #4 did not show communication from any of the offset frac activity.

Figure 19 Pad 8 spacing test - offset pressure from fracs

URTeC 1934952

13

In terms of the liquid tracer results, Table 2 shows the early time results. Without going into great detail, the
inferences drawn from the tracer test included:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Toe tracer data showed the toes to be flowing back to surface from all wells;
Well #1 showed tracer communication from Well #2, stages 1 through 3, consistent with the pressure
communication;
Well #1 also showed tracer communication from Well #2, stages 4 through 11, although to a lesser degree;
and
There were no other observations of communication between the four wells investigated, or in the single
well drilled in the opposite direction.

Table 2 Pad 8 spacing test offset tracer data

Cumulative production data for the four side-by-side wells, plus the original single well, are summarized in Figures
20 through 22. Well head liquid, gas, and BOEs (20:1 basis) are shown, respectively. Figures 23 and 24 show the
well head liquid production and casing pressure for wells #2 and #3 alone. The following comments/observations
relate to this data:
1.
2.

3.
4.

The wells were drilled in the same geological interval and with similar lateral lengths. All results have
been normalized to 1800 m lateral length for comparison.
The original single well was fracd with a proppant loading of 1 tonne/m lateral, whereas the spacing test
wells were fracd with roughly 1.5 tonnes/m lateral (larger fracs were used because our experience to date
at that time, indicated larger fracs performed better). No adjustments have been made to the production
data to account for differing frac sizes.
As shown by the pressure data in Figure 20, the four spacing test wells were produced with a more
controlled drawdown strategy, i.e., they were choked to maintain higher flowing pressures.
Although they were produced at higher flowing pressures, by 60 days of production all four spacing test
wells had surpassed the single well in terms of well head liquid production (and they continue to perform
well, as evidence by the high slope in Figure 20).

URTeC 1934952

5.
6.
7.

8.

9.

14

By 90 days, two of the wells had surpassed the single well in terms of cumulative gas production, while
two wells are still lagging behind the single well, at to the date this papers presentation.
On a BOE (20:1) basis, all four wells had surpassed the single well after 60 days of cumulative production
volumes.
The cumulative production curves for the two spacing test wells with the highest production have stayed
relatively flat to date, while the other two exhibit distinct downward bends. Initially, it was thought that
these downward trend may be the result of production interference between wells. However, when these
wells are examined in isolation (see Figures 23 and 24), it can be seen that the kinks occurred when the
wells were further choked back (due to a lack of sufficient facilities capacity). This production change is
coincidental with a rising casing (and bottom hole flowing pressure) pressure. Thus, deviation from the
cumulative production trend, for these wells can be attributed to increased choking, rather than to
production interference.
The fact that one of the two wells with the best production profiles within the grouping is an inside well
(i.e., is bounded by wells on both sides) and the other is an outside well tends to lead further credence to the
inference that these wells have not yet seen significant production interference. As a result, based on the
data available to date, it seems probable that the optimum well spacing is less than 320 m (5 wells per
section), at least in this area of the project.
Although the operator continues to monitor supporting evidence, the fact that the spacing test wells all
produced more well head liquid with a slower/controlled drawdown, as compared to the single well with a
too aggressive drawdown, is consistent with observations of the performance of other individual wells in
the past. As a result the operator is reviewing its approach to flow back drawdown.

Figure 20 Pad 8 spacing test Well head liquid production* comparison (*Well head liquid is mostly condensate with some C2-C4 in liquid
phase due to high pressures during flow back. Does not include plant extracted C5+).

URTeC 1934952

Figure 21 Pad 8 spacing test gas production comparison

Figure 22 Pad 8 spacing test BOE (20:1) production comparison

15

URTeC 1934952

16

Figure 23 Pad 8 spacing test well 1-8; well head liquid* production and flowing pressure (*Well head liquid is mostly condensate with some
C2-C4 in liquid phase due to high pressures during flow back. Does not include plant extracted C5+).

Figure 24 Pad 8 spacing test well 4-9; well head liquid* production and flowing pressure (*Well head liquid is mostly condensate with some
C2-C4 in liquid phase due to high pressures during flow back. Does not include plant extracted C5+).

Pad 19 Spacing Test

Figure 25 shows the lateral placement for the operators second spacing test on Pad 19. This illustrates that in
addition to a single well that had already been producing at that site for roughly a year, two wells spaced 160 m
apart (10 wells/section). Data gathering methods for this spacing test were similar to those for Pad 8; i.e., they
included offset pressure monitoring during the frac (no pressure data analysis was available at the time of writing
this paper), liquid tracers in the frac fluids (well #1 had tracer injected into the toe only, and well #2 had tracer
injected along its length). Production was also monitored to check for indications of interference.

URTeC 1934952

17

Figure 25 Pad 19 spacing test layout

In terms of the liquid tracer results, Figures 26 and 27 illustrate the overall results.
comments/conclusions from the tracer test include:
1.
2.
3.

Once again, the

Both wells were showing tracer concentrations injected into the toe ports, implying wellbores open to flow
along their length;
No tracer from well 02/14-17 (only the toe port was traced) showed up in well 14-17; and
With the exception of one interval, there was tracer communication from well 14-17 to well 02/14-17 from
all sections of the wellbore in well 14-17.

Figure 26 & 27 respectively Pad 19 spacing test tracer data from well 14-17; Pad 19 spacing test tracer data from 02/14-17

From a production perspective, pressure response/interference was noted early in the life of these two spacing test
wells. Figure 28 shows an overlay of five minute production and flowing pressure data. The cumulative production
data for the two wells, plus the original single well on that pad, are summarized in Figures 29 through 31 for well
head liquid, gas, and BOEs (20:1 basis), respectively. The following comments/observations relate to these data:
1.

2.
3.
4.

Figure 28 shows that the shut in pressure at well 14-17 was declining slowly and then began to stabilize, in
response to production from offset 02/14-17. It also responded by building pressure during brief shut-ins of
well 02/14-17.
Well 02/14-17 surpassed the single well, in terms of well head liquid production, after roughly 80 days.
Well 14-17 has been producing for only 50 days, but it has followed a similar cumulative production
profile to 02/14-17, thus far.
In terms of gas production, the cumulative production profiles for the two new spacing test wells are
similar to each other. After roughly 100 days, they are still somewhat lagging behind the single well.

URTeC 1934952

5.
6.

18

On a BOE (20:1) basis, 02/14-17 had produced almost as much as the single well after 100 days, and 14-17
has followed a similar cumulative production profile (up to 50 days of production).
Overall, there are definite signs of production interference between these two wells, but the productivity
impacts do not seem to be severe. The longer term productivity will have to be assessed, and the
appropriate economic analyses performed, before it can be determined whether or not 160 m spacing (10
wells per section) is approaching the optimum. For now, the operator is adopting a conservative strategy,
and spacing its wells between 268 m and 200 m spacing (6 to 8 wells per section per interval) on a goforward basis.

Figure 28 Pad 19 spacing test overlay of detailed production and pressure data

Figure 29 Pad 19 spacing test well head liquid production comparison (*Well head liquid is mostly condensate with some C2-C4 in liquid
phase due to high pressures during flow back. Does not include plant extracted C5+).

URTeC 1934952

19

Figure 30 Pad 19 spacing test gas production comparison

Figure 31 Pad 19 spacing test BOE (20:1) production comparison

Conclusions
Overall conclusions which may be drawn from the operators experience to date include:
1.
2.

3.

An integrated approach has worked well for the operator in its efforts to demonstrate and develop the
liquids rich Montney resource in Kakwa;
Drilling costs have been reduced by roughly 33% when compared to the first horizontal Montney
drilled at Kawka, when measured on a dollars per metre of lateral length basis. A variety of
technologies, as well as the use of pad drilling and extended reach laterals (up to 3000 m) were the
major contributors in these reductions;
On the completion side, pad drilling, extended reach laterals and higher proppant loading have helped
to improve the cost per unit of production. However, without long term production history, this is
hard to quantify;

URTeC 1934952

4.

5.

20

Early results from proppant loading and spacing tests have indicated:
a.
The comparison between the two proppant loading test wells (one was fracd at 0.67
tonnes proppant per metre of lateral, and the second proppant loading was 1.32 tonnes per
metre of lateral) indicates that the larger frac has performed better, thus far.
b. Pressure monitoring data during the frac stimulation, along with liquid tracer tests,
indicated a certain amount of communication between the spacing test wells on Pad 8,
but the production from the wells has surpassed the older single well. The operator has
concluded from this data that wells can likely be drilled closer than 320 m (5 wells per
section) without detrimental impacts to the economics.
c.
Strong tracer communication and definite production interference were experienced
between the two spacing test wells on Pad 19, where the unbounded laterals are spaced
160 m apart. However, the early time data is not indicating a severe production impact
thus far. An economic analysis will have to be used to assess whether or not 160 m
spacing (10 wells per section) is near the optimum.
Although significant progress has been made so far in optimizing the drilling and completion costs,
there is still potential for further optimization.

Acknowledgements:
The authors would like to thank all contributors from the Seven Generations Energy Ltd. team that made this paper
possible.
References:
1. Kuppe. F, Nevokshonoff. G & Haysom. H: Liquids Rich Unconventional Montney: The Geology and the
Forecast SPE 162824, 2012.
2. Canadian Discovery Ltd. & GDGC (2008). Phase 1 Hydrodynamics and Regional Facies of the Montney
Formation.
3. J-diddy.wikispaces.comj-diddy - what environmentJ-diddy.wikispaces.com (2000) j-diddy - what environment.
[online] Available at: http://j-diddy.wikispaces.com/what+environment [Accessed: 1 Aug 2012].