SPE-191712-MS

Pre-Loads: Successful Mitigation of Damaging Frac Hits in the Eagle Ford

Tom Whitfield, M. Hunter Watkins, and L. James Dickinson, BHP

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2018 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 24-26 September 2018.

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
Although infill drilling and tighter well spacing have improved the production and economic return for
North American Shale leases, these practices have intensified a problematic side effect often referred to as
Frac Hits (Jacobs 2017). Frac hits occur when a new ‘child’ well is completed near an already producing well
and the frac treatment interacts with the older parent well, usually resulting in either total loss of production
or diminished producing capacity (King et al. 2017). In some fields, such as the Haynesville, frac hits have
been reported to improve parent well production (Esquivel & Blasingame 2017). However, as these wells
produce longer in to their life cycle, that positive impact is less certain to result in a long-term recovery
improvement. In the past, the loss of the parent well was not associated with a significant loss in production
compared to the new wells. However, with increasingly larger completion designs executed on wells spaced
ever closer together, the impact of frac hits has grown substantially in the past few years (Daneshy 2017;
Rainbolt & Esco 2018).
Frac hits are not a new phenomenon in the development of North America's Shale fields. Usually first
encountered by operators during the progression from Hold By Production (HBP) to infill drilling, they
have been widely documented and studied over the past 6+ years. However, apart from avoiding frac hits
entirely through a fully integrated field development plan, the existing industry literature does not provide
a flexible, repeatable, cost effective solution to mitigating frac hits. Refracs have been discussed for parent
wells next to the new infills, but economics have been difficult to justify on more recently completed wells
with larger completion designs, and refracs do not address the challenge of third or higher generation infill
activities where several wells are at risk of being frac hit.
This document will cover the development of the frac hit mitigation technique that the authors developed
in their company's Eagle Ford acreage and which is now employed as standard practice for all infill
completion campaigns in both the Eagle Ford and Permian.

Introduction
Although infill drilling and tighter well spacing have improved the production and economic return for
North American Shale leases, these practices have intensified a problematic side effect often referred to as
Frac Hits (Jacobs 2017). Frac hits occur when a new ‘child’ well is completed near an already producing well
and the frac treatment interacts with the older parent well, usually resulting in either total loss of production
2 SPE-191712-MS

or diminished producing capacity (King et al. 2017). In some fields, such as the Haynesville, frac hits have
been reported to improve parent well production (Esquivel & Blasingame 2017). However, as these wells
produce longer in to their life cycle, that positive impact is less certain to result in a long-term recovery
improvement. In the past, the loss of the parent well was not associated with a significant loss in production
compared to the new wells. However, with increasingly larger completion designs executed on wells spaced
ever closer together, the impact of frac hits has grown substantially in the past few years (Daneshy 2017;
Rainbolt & Esco 2018).
Frac hits are not a new phenomenon in the development of North America's Shale fields. Usually first
encountered by operators during the progression from Hold By Production (HBP) to infill drilling, they
have been widely documented and studied over the past 6+ years. However, apart from avoiding frac hits
entirely through a fully integrated field development plan, the existing industry literature does not provide
a flexible, repeatable, cost effective solution to mitigating frac hits. Refracs have been discussed for parent
wells next to the new infills, but economics have been difficult to justify on more recently completed wells
with larger completion designs, and refracs do not address the challenge of third or higher generation infill
activities where several wells are at risk of being frac hit.
This document will cover the development of the frac hit mitigation technique that the authors developed
in their company's Eagle Ford acreage and which is now employed as standard practice for all infill
completion campaigns in both the Eagle Ford and Permian.

What are Frac Hits?

More accurately described as Frac Interference or Frac Communication, frac hits are the result of pressure,
fluid and/or proppant communication between an existing production well and a new infill well being
completed nearby. With the advent of the high rate, high pressure and high volume frac'ing technique, the
generated fracture half lengths in new wells can be greater than the well spacing (Savitski et al. 2013).
By moving through natural fracture systems, fluid communication can also be observed over distances far
greater than the generated fracture (Potluri 2005).
Evidence of frac communication can be seen in many ways. At the lowest impact end of the spectrum,
a pressure pulse may be monitored on the existing well when the infill well is completed. Often it is
possible to map the frac pump start and stop times because the communication between wells is so distinct,
as demonstrated in Fig. 1. Rainbolt & Esco (2018) offers extensive analysis of similar offset pressure
communication monitoring.

Figure 1—Frac pressure communication.

At a step above just a pressure signal, the next sign of frac hits is observing frac fluid communication
from the existing well. If the operator were to experience frac fluid communication with a producing well,
one may observe the water cut increase dramatically, all the way up to producing only completion fluid
injected at the new well (Awada 2016). If the operator had the existing well shut-in at the time of the infill
SPE-191712-MS 3

frac, a fluid communication event may be observed by a simple increase in water production when the well
is brought back to production. Fig. 2 shows the production history of a severely frac hit well:

Figure 2—Oil production of frac hit well.

The third, and most significant, form of frac communication is the observation of proppant in the wellbore
(Pyecroft et al. 2016). This outcome usually requires the operator to perform a coiled tubing clean out,
resulting in significant deferred production and execution expense. Fig. 3, below, depicts an open top slop
tank on the site of a coiled tubing clean out after a frac hit. The substance in the tank is a slurry of pulverized
shale and proppant.

Figure 3—Frac hit wellbore clean-out returns.

Not only can frac hits be identified through observation of production change on the existing well,
microseismic data acquired during the infill frac next to existing wells will also reveal a large number of
frac events around the existing wells in the depleted reservoir section, and preferential frac growth toward
4 SPE-191712-MS

the existing wells. This is illustrated in Fig. 4 where microseismic data was captured for a four well infill
campaign fully bounded by existing production wells. Other operators have similarly found microseismic
data agrees with the production impacts (Sardinha et al. 2014). The reader should note the preferential
growth towards the offset wells that doesn't lend to generating new fractures around the infill well until
over 50% of the infill frac is pumped.

Figure 4—Microseismic data visualization.

The communication between wells is often detrimental to both the existing well and the new completion.
In the case of the existing well, frac hit pressures have resulted in collapsed casing, buckled and sheared
tubing, moved production packers, failed artificial lift equipment and in the worst cases, complete failure
of well integrity, a few examples of which are shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.

Figure 5—Damaged completion components due to frac hits.

SPE-191712-MS 5

Figure 6—Parted casing on two wells due to frac hits.

For new wells completed adjacent to existing producers, the frac energy lost to the existing well typically
results in a less effective frac than planned. This will usually manifest itself as a lower producing well, with
less pressure support than the other child wells on the pad that aren't immediately adjacent to the existing
producer. This has historically been equivalent to approximately 20% of a new well production rate. Lawal
et al. (2014) provides a methodology to quantify the amount of loss due to frac hits.

Scope of the Paper

Over the past decade there has been a significant amount of energy and resources dedicated to studying
and understanding the mechanism of frac hits across North American shales operators. The purpose of
this paper, however, is not to study the why of frac hits, but to document the development of an effective
frac hit mitigation strategy, widely applicable to North America's most prolific shale reservoirs. For more
information on the study of the mechanics behind frac hits, King et al. (2017) includes references to
the majority of technical papers examining frac hits. Wu, K. et al. (2018) offers the most recent study
investigating the damage mechanism of frac hits.

Tested Frac Hit Mitigation Strategies

The authors have firsthand experience with several different frac hit mitigation strategies that have been
tested in the Eagle Ford. A chronological summary of the most common methods, the development of
different strategies, and their effectiveness is provided.

Shut-Ins (2010)
When frac hits first started to be encountered in 2010 with the move from HBP development to infill drilling,
the impact from the loss of parent well production was minimal compared to the uplift generated by the
6 SPE-191712-MS

newly completed wells. It was also assumed that any drop in production from the parent well was being
recovered by the new wells. With this frame of mind, it's not hard to understand why the earliest frac hit
mitigation strategies were simple. Shutting in a parent well is the simplest operation that can be performed
ahead of infill frac activity. Unfortunately, it is also not very effective. Despite trying this on over 45 wells,
the cumulative outcome was that most parent wells still saw a loss in production following the infill frac,
averaging almost 40% reduction in oil production across all impacted wells.

Temporarily Abandon (2012)

The energy associated with frac hits can be so great that it can cause extensive physical damage to existing
wells. This was encountered in the Eagle Ford, with well integrity being compromised on an older well not
completed to the same standard as current well designs dictate. With this came a renewed vigor to identify
potential well integrity concerns ahead of infill frac activity. Wells at risk were temporarily abandoned (T/
A'd) to ensure no loss of containment. This is particularly effective in addressing well integrity concerns.
However, due to the expense of the operations and resulting recovery intervention, the three wells T/A'd
have not been returned to production.

Frac and Flow (2014)

As the name suggests, Frac and Flow is the operation of producing the offset well during the infill frac
activity. This technique was trialed as a method to eliminate well integrity concerns, by keeping frac
hit pressure as low as possible, but not requiring the cost of a T/A to maintain well integrity. It was
certainly effective at keeping pressures low, however it proved no more successful in maintaining post infill
production than the shut-in technique; For the total 63 wells that the Frac and Flow technique was used the
average loss in production was 60%.

Small Pre-Loads (2014)

As Eagle Ford field development pace increased and volume of deferred production continued to rise with
each frac hit parent well, the first technique to be tested that involved performing work on a well prior
to an infill campaign was the Small Pre-Load. This consisted of pumping 500- to 1,000 bbls at low rates.
The volume was chosen as to be small enough to pump in a day shift and the rate dictated by the cheapest
rental pumps available that could deliver the pressure necessary. The production outcome of these three
trials was not much better than the shut-in technique, but the mechanical outcome was that 100% of the
wells were returned to production without requiring any type of intervention or work over. Three wells is
a small sample size, but to date there has been no sample size greater than one across all of the Eagle Ford
that has a 100% success outcome when it comes to frac hit mitigation.

High Rate Water Defensive Frac (2015)

Following on the technical success of the Small Pre-Load was the High Rate Water Frac. These four wells
had intended to be full water and sand Refracs, however, due to some challenges with the pre-operation
work over, a hybrid water only frac was performed. Water volumes ranged from 18,000- to 45,000 bbl and
the pump rate varied from 12- to 15 bbl/min. Similar to the Small Pre-Load, all wells came back online
without requiring intervention. Production improved over a short time but was not sustained. This operation
was particularly effective at mitigating frac hits. However, due to the high rate and pressure, the cost of
execution did not provide an economically favorable outcome.

Refracs (2017)
Following on from recent developments of some offset operators in the Eagle Ford, several full sand and
water Refracs have been executed as a trial. Long term production data is not yet available. However, they
have been successful in line with expectations of preventing damage and improving production of the parent
well. The big challenge with Refracs is that they are time consuming and expensive to execute, effectively
SPE-191712-MS 7

making them inappropriate as a frac hit mitigation strategy if an operator were to try and implement them
as standard practice across a full field.

Integrated Field Development Planning

Another option to mitigate the damage from frac hits is to prevent them occurring at all. This can be
accomplished through a fully integrated field development plan that considers well spacing, drill and frac
timing, production timing, initial and future leasehold obligations, offset operator activity, cash flow, capital
expenditure, and the marketing and distribution network. However, with most mineral and surface lease
agreements written in the favor of the landowner and mineral rights holders this can be prohibitively
expensive, requiring far more concentrated and accelerated development activity than the operator would
prefer. This accelerated development is capital intensive requiring aggressive front-loaded investment and
defers return to free cash flow until later in the development cycle. This may be an option for a very large
diversified operator but may be out of reach of the large number of smaller operators across US shale.
As well, it does not allow the operator to capitalize on learnings made through smaller development and
completion trials across its shale acreage, nor does it allow the operator to benefit from the technology
improvements inherent to this rapidly maturing industry. On the surface, an effort to prevent frac hits entirely
may be idealistic; however, this is not a simplistic or flexible solution.

Damage Mechanism Analysis

While it is not the purpose of this paper to evaluate the modelling and fundamental understanding of why
and how frac communication occurs, it is the goal of this work to understand how to mitigate against the
damage caused by frac hits, which requires an understanding of the damage mechanism. By observing
the many frac hits across the Eagle Ford and the different results obtained through all of the previously
tested mitigation strategies, it has become clear to the authors that the damage encountered by frac hits is
directly attributable to the movement of fluid in the reservoir and fracture networks from a high pressure
source (the infill frac) to a low pressure sink (the parent wellbore). This fluid movement is allowed due
to the compressible nature of hydrocarbons, particularly gas columns in wellbores, compared to the low
compressibility of the water based frac fluid.
This high velocity, high momentum fluid movement between an infill frac and existing wellbore causes
the disruption of the previously generated fracture network. It is capable of displacing previously placed
proppant, can damage the formation itself, and in the worst circumstances can cause mechanical damage
to the offset wells.
By having a hypothesis of what is causing the damage, it is then possible to develop and test a mitigation
method that directly targets this mechanism. That strategy became, simply, to place incompressible fluid
in the wellbore and generated fracture network to prevent fluid movement in the system. This would be
accomplished by:

• Pumping a sufficient volume of fluid to fill the entire generated fracture network

• Pump at low rates to get good fill along the length of the wellbore

• Pump at low pressure to avoid generating new fractures at the heel of the well that would otherwise
steal the injected fluid
• Perform this pump-in on a sufficient number of offset wells over a sufficient distance to eliminate
far reaching frac hits
This simple philosophy is depicted in Fig. 7.
8 SPE-191712-MS

Figure 7—Pre-Load frac hit mitigation strategy

With a hypothesis developed, the authors approached the company with the strategy and a proposition to
trial it in the next round of upcoming infill completion activity in the Eagle Ford, in the Karnes region. The
company agreed with the hypothesis, and so the Karnes Project was born.

Karnes Field Trial

The Karnes Project was executed in late 2016 and consisted of pumping nine large, low rate Pre-Loads fully
bounding the infill completion activity. A map of the area is shown in Fig. 8. The purple lines represent
the location of the nine new wells and the orange lines represent the Pre-Loaded wells. Table 1 outlines the
volume pumped in to each of the Pre-Loaded wells.

Figure 8—Karnes field trial.

SPE-191712-MS 9

Table 1—Karnes trial frac hit mitigation technique.

Well Number Artificial Lift Type Mitigation Method Pumped Volume

1 Gas Lift Pre-Load 8,060

2 Gas Lift Pre-Load 20,600

3 Gas Lift Pre-Load 3,060

4 Gas Lift Pre-Load 3,060

5 Gas Lift Pre-Load 3,060

6 Gas Lift Pre-Load 2,860

7 Gas Lift Pre-Load 6,010

8 Rod Pump Pre-Load 15,000

9 Rod Pump Pre-Load 10,060

The purpose of the project was twofold: A) Prove that the Pre-Load technique would be successful, and B)
Iterate on injection volume to determine the optimum volume to pump that maximizes benefit to the existing
well and minimizes cost. To determine effectiveness of the Pre-Load, a range of data would be collected
including production rates pre and post infill, surface pressure data before, during, and after the infill activity,
surface injection pressure of the pre-load and infill frac, pressure fall off and frac communication pressure.
One of the parent wells also had a downhole pressure gauge installed that would be used for real-time
monitoring of reservoir pressure.
Success of the Trial would be measured against the following criteria:
– Pre-Loads will reduce the pressure seen on existing wells during the offset frac operation
– Pre-Loads will reduce the number of wells that observe frac hits
– Pre-Loads will reduce or eliminate the production loss expected by the Parent wells
– All wells to come back online at or above previous rates, without requiring any intervention
– Pre-Loads will be value accretive

Artificial Lift Considerations

As noted in Table 1, there are two types of artificial lift employed across the Karnes Pre-Load wells. This is
significant from a planning perspective, as the Pre-Load strategy must take in to account the time and cost
of preparing for an offset frac. The gas lifted wells utilized low pressure side pocket mandrel valves. With a
differential pressure rating of only 5,000 psi and an absolute pressure rating of 7,000 psi these valves were
likely to be damaged during the infill frac as the expected pressure was likely to be much higher than this,
particularly for the lower valves. A slickline intervention was performed for each gas lift well, where the
retrievable side pocket mandrel gas lift valves were replaced with high pressure dummy valves. Live valves
were reinstalled after the infill campaign once the wells required artificial lift again.
The wells on Rod Pump were more difficult. Older wells, with casing designs not rated for sour service
conditions it was imperative that the well integrity of these wells be maintained. With the success of previous
small pre-loads ensuring well integrity was maintained in all wells, the decision was made not to T/A these
wells, but instead to pull the tubing, rods and pump, and reinstall 2⅜-in. tubing with a deep-set production
packer. The rod pumping equipment would then be reinstalled following the infill frac activity.

Results: Fracture Network Pressure

The first part of the Pre-Load hypothesis was that by injecting fluid in to the well that the fracture network
pressure would be increased, yielding a change in the stress state that would deter the growth of fracs
away from the existing wells. With the downhole gauge installed on well #9 it was possible to accurately
10 SPE-191712-MS

measure the pressure benefit obtained by pumping the preload. Fig. 9, below, shows the pressure data
obtained from this well. The well was shut-in at day three and one can observe the typical sudden increase
in bottomhole pressure at this time. The pressure increases 1,000 psi within 24 hours and then another 1,000
psi over the next 3 weeks. It was at this time, around day 25, that the Preload operation was performed.
Upon commencing injection the bottomhole pressure immediately increased to ~8,500 psi and the pressure
remained at this level for the duration of the pump in. Once the desired volume of fluid was pumped and
the pumps shut down, it is interesting to observe that the downhole pressure falls off rather quickly. This
suggests the injection was successful in increasing the fracture network pressure for a short time, but that
it was not sustained.

Figure 9—Pre-Load downhole pressure data.

In fact, interpreted on the pressure plot are extrapolations of the pressure build prior to the preload and
the pressure fall off afterwards. It is clear to see that the two trends are projected to meet again, within 40
days of pumping the Pre-Load.
The conclusion is that Pre-Loads provide a significant, temporary increase in fracture network pressure.
Highlighted in the green box is the ideal window for performing the offset frac. This window is
approximately 7 days. Although this ideal window makes physical sense, it is worth noting at this point that
wells Pre-Loaded further in advance than the ideal window still perform significantly better than non-Pre-
Loaded wells, and timing is less important than performing a Pre-Load at all.

Results: Parent Wellhead Pressure

The obvious extension from increasing the fracture network pressure is that the increase in the pressure
will result in a lower maximum frac communication pressure being observed on offset wells. Fig. 10 plots
the maximum surface pressures observed for Pre-Loaded and non-Pre-Loaded wells. The non-Pre-Loaded
well was from a previous infill campaign, but a contiguous lease to the Karnes Trial wells and indicative of
typical pressure response in the Eagle Ford. Notably, the Pre-Load appears to reduce the maximum surface
SPE-191712-MS 11

pressure observed on offset producing wells, on the order of 1,000- to 1,500 psi for the first offset, and then
there is little difference observed on the second offset.

Figure 10—Maximum surface pressure communication.

Acknowledging that the act of pumping water in the wellbore will change the hydrostatic gradient to
the reservoir, it is prudent to compare the maximum bottomhole pressure observed by the offset wells,
eliminating the impact of hydrostatic pressure. This is shown for the same well set in Fig. 11.

Figure 11—Maximum downhole pressure communication.

By accounting for the hydrostatic impact of filling the wellbore with water, one can observe that the Pre-
Loaded wells do not experience a lower pressure communication with the infill frac than non-Pre-Loaded
wells.
Initially, this may seem insignificant. However, for wells where well integrity issues and maximum
pressure are concerns, this is critical, as the Pre-Load will not reduce the pressure communication observed
on first and second order offset wells other than hydrostatic differences. The Karnes wells were monitored
for H2S content, as sour service conditions were a concern for the older wells and it can be noted that H2S
readings were 0 ppm for all preloaded wells during the infill activity, despite having produced measurable
levels of H2S before the Pre-Load. This will not eliminate the risks of Sulfide Stress Cracking if it is a
concern for the wells, but it will help minimize the risk.

Results: Frac Barriers, Distance and Depletion

The second hypothesis to be tested was that performing a Pre-Load campaign would reduce the number of
offset wells that observe frac communication. To be able to determine if the Pre-Load would be successful,
it is necessary to define the expected outcome using experience from the rest of the Eagle Ford. This
experience suggests that frac hits can occur on as many as four or five offset wells, and that the distance that
12 SPE-191712-MS

frac hits are observed is not directly related to distance between the infill well and the existing well. In fact,
the longest frac hit observed in the Eagle Ford is greater than 5,000 ft, and in the worst cases entire pads of
wells have been wiped out due to a single infill pad. A graphical example of this is shown in Fig. 12.

Figure 12—Typical frac communication in the Eagle Ford.

With this as a baseline, performance of the Pre-Load in preventing frac communication can be compared,
a graphic of which is shown in Fig. 13.

Figure 13—Pre-Load frac communication.

The results agree with the hypothesis. In all the Pre-Load cases the maximum number of wells to
observe frac communication was two. This means that regardless of offset distance, original and infill
completion design, depletion, cumulative production, age of well, and any other parameter, the two well
barrier technique of the preload prevents frac communication from travelling a distance greater than two
Pre-Loaded wellbores. The most valuable aspect of this insight is that it can be planned and relied upon. As
a result, Pre-Load downtime and deferred production can be planned, the third and subsequent wellbores
can continue to be produced without risk of being frac hit, and budgets and forecasts can be constructed
with confidence in being able to deliver that plan.
SPE-191712-MS 13

Results: Parent Well Performance

Once it was established that frac communication can be mitigated though the Pre-Load strategy, the next
and most important component to address is any impact on the parent well production. The analysis was
conducted to compare the average production performance of the Pre-Loaded well for a period before and
after the infill frac was completed. The analysis was conducted for all frac hit wells in the Eagle Ford as well
as the Pre-Loaded wells in the Karnes trial. Fig. 14 demonstrates the relative change in oil production for
the subject wells. No change in production is expressed as 0%, a reduction in production rate is a negative
and an improvement is a positive outcome.

Figure 14—Parent well production before and after infill frac activity.

As discussed previously, the historic frac hit mitigation techniques were not particularly effective and
preventing a reduction in production of the frac hit parent wells, notwithstanding that the Pre-Load and
High Rate Water Defensive Frac (DFRAC) were successful in preventing mechanical damage to the well
and allowing all wells to come back to production without intervention. The production performance for the
average of all the frac hit wells in Eagle Ford, along with the unsuccessful frac hit mitigation techniques is
−40%, a 40% reduction in oil rate after the frac hit. The average Pre-Load well oil production change is an
improvement of 25% compared to production before the infill frac. The standard deviation in performance
after infill frac is also very small for the Pre-Load at ~5%, and this performance is not dependent on the
infill frac completion design, the parent well completion design, age, depletion, recovery, well spacing, Pre-
Load timing before infill frac, or any other criteria that we can measure against other than volume. The large
Pre-Loads are far more successful than the small Pre-Loads.
The Pre-Load was also successful in meeting the objective to return all wells to production without
intervention. All Pre-Loaded wells were immediately put back to production following the completion of
the infill frac. Additionally, performance was so good that the Rod Pump wells were able to produce for 6
months without the downhole pump and rods being reinstalled in the wellbore.
All wells saw an increase in water production, with water cuts increasing from 5% up to 30% on average
and as high as 50% on one well. This has become an expected outcome; all wells with observed frac hits
in the Eagle Ford experienced an increase in water cut, even when overall production declines. The key
14 SPE-191712-MS

here is that over time the water cut does decrease, and being able to restore the parent wells to production
prior to the infill wells allows them to benefit from the increased reservoir pressure and accelerate the water
cut reduction. Cumulative water production to date for the trial wells since the Pre-Loads is at 150% of the
volume pumped during the Pre-Load and climbing, with the highest ‘load recovery’ being over 350%. The
water being produced by the parent well after the Pre-Load is not directly related to the volume pumped
on the Pre-Load, and the water source has been determined to be the infill frac. The Eagle Ford is a dry
formation and can absorb a large amount of water, although current generation completion designs saturate
this water carrying capacity. As a result all infill wells produce at higher water cuts than original parent wells,
and all Pre-Loaded parent wells exhibit a dramatic increase in water production post infill frac activity.
Contrary to the increase in water-oil ratio, gas-oil ratio decreased significantly in all Pre-Loaded wells.
Eagle Ford wells, over their life, tend to start production at a fairly low GOR, which increases steadily over
time. The GOR measured on all wells after the Pre-Load and infill frac corresponded with the wells’ initial
production ratio. This change in GOR was maintained for several months, increasing over time to the ratio
measured prior to the Pre-Load operation.
RTA analysis was performed on all of the Pre-Loaded wells to consider the change in reservoir pressure
observed and the resulting impact it has on increasing oil production. All wells observed a zero change or
marginal increase in productivity following the infill frac.
To determine the source of the production improvement as either the Pre-Load itself or being a result of
the interaction with the infill completion activity, a Pre-Load was performed on a well in an adjacent Karnes
lease without any offset frac activity associated with it. A total of 20,000 bbl of water was pumped into the
well and the post job performance of that well did not change, leading to the conclusion that the Pre-Load
itself does not improve production, it simply prevents damage to the existing well, and it is the interaction
with the infill frac that improves the production of the existing wells.
These are all significant observations in understanding the root cause of the benefit of the Pre-Load: If
the Pre-Load does not increase the fracture network pressure, if it does not provide any production benefit
by itself, if the injected fluid volume has no relation to the recovered water volume, then the conclusion is in
agreement with the original hypothesis: The cause of damage from frac hits is the high velocity movement
of fluid in the fracture network; and that filling the fracture network with incompressible fluid will prevent
this fluid movement and the resulting damage.

Results: Infill Well Performance

With the production improvement observed on Pre-Loaded parent wells, a reduction in the performance
of the infill wells may be expected where the Parent well would be producing from the generated fracture
network by the new wells. This can be tested by analysis of the parent well production. It has been
historically observed across the Eagle Ford that the production performance of the closest infill well, when
completed next to an existing producer, was typically 20% poorer than the other wells completed on the
same pad. This has been consistent across all the Eagle Ford, regardless of completion design, well spacing,
depletion, or parent well production. An unexpected and surprising outcome of the Karnes Pre-Load trial
was that all the infill wells perform similarly to each other; the wells closest to existing wells did not suffer
a performance degradation due to proximity to the depleted wells. Fig. 15 demonstrates the production
performance of the closest infill compared to the average pad well performance.
SPE-191712-MS 15

Figure 15—Infill well production performance offset Pre-Loads.

Thus, the improvement in the Pre-Loaded parent wells is not reducing the production of the infill wells.
This implies the Pre-Load is responsible for a higher quality infill completion that benefits both the existing
and new wells alike.

Results: Economics
A hypothetical case is presented here that replicates the production results observed from the Karnes trial. It
uses costs that any operator would be able to achieve using industry sourced equipment and materials, with
a generic industry analyst wet gas Eagle Ford type curve for a 2010 (Parent) and 2016 (infill) generation
completion design, and flat pricing from the 2016 financial year. The scenario is assessed as incremental
economics on a with or without Pre-Load case for a simple infill frac campaign and considers the cost
of deferred production in the Pre-Load scenario, loading the Pre-Load case with 1 month of deferment to
simulate the time to perform the Pre-Load and infill frac before putting the parent wells back online. The
lease scenario is shown in Fig. 16 with three new wells being completed next to four existing producers.
The direction of maximum horizontal stress is assumed to be perpendicular to the well path. The economic
assessment also only considers the next 3 years of production from the wells, a conservative assumption
of a minimum expected well life.
In the no Pre-Load scenario the three existing wells production profiles are reduced by 40% and the
first infill type curve is reduced by 20% to replicate the historical averages observed across the Eagle
Ford; However, no downtime, deferred production, or operating expense is incurred incremental to the infill
completion cost. In the Pre-Load scenario, the parent well type curves are left unchanged, and the first infill
type curve is not deducted by the 20%. The parent production profiles are shifted to allow for a 1 month
planned deferment on the closest two parent wells, and the economics are burdened with the operating
expense to perform the two Pre-Loads. The economic analysis is performed assuming a 10% cost of capital,
consistent with industry analyst assumptions, and the outcome from the economic case is presented in Fig.
17.
16 SPE-191712-MS

Figure 16—Pre-Load economics.

Figure 17—Generic Pre-Load economic performance.

With a payout of 3 months and 840,000 USD NPV improvement within 3 years compared to the no Pre-
Load scenario, these figures are in line with some of the best project economics available to North American
shale producers.

Subsequent Projects
After the production and economic success realized in the Karnes trial, the Pre-Load technique was tested
in Hawkville and Permian.

Hawkville
The Hawkville project was an infill program that was fully bounded by operator managed wells, similar to
the Karnes trial. The differences here were in the nuances, and it provided an opportunity to develop the
SPE-191712-MS 17

Pre-Load strategy accounting for some more variables, such as highly offset wells, heel-toe offset wells on
frac plane with no lateral overlap, wellbores not orientated to the principal horizontal stress direction, and
wells producing with different types of artificial lift. The infill campaign consisted of three new wells with
14 offset wells within expected frac communication distance. Pre-Loads were performed on five of those
wells, and the rest were shut-in to better understand the Pre-Load and distance relationship. All the Pre-
Loaded wells in the Hawkville trial were artificially lifted via plungers, indicating the current liquid gas
ratio and sensitivity of the wells to an expected increase in water oil ratio. Fig. 18 shows the field layout of
the infill and existing wells, along with the frac hit mitigation strategy employed for each well. The basis
of the frac hit mitigation program was to use the Pre-Load strategy developed in Karnes and adjust the two
wellbore spacing requirement based on some of the large well spacing in play. The wells drawn in green
represent the infill wells and the yellow boxes identify the frac hit mitigation technique used for the offset
wells, ranging from shut-in only "SI" to 10,000 bbl Pre-Load "10K" and 20,000 bbl Pre-Load "20K".
The stars represent the outcome of the frac hit mitigation strategy. All the wells that were Pre-Loaded
saw a neutral to positive impact, in-line with expectations, and the only wells that saw a negative outcome
were two wells south of the infill wells, aligned with the direction of maximum horizontal stress, which
were shut-in and observed significant frac hit pressure and a subsequent reduction in well performance.
The negative outcome on two wells is unfortunate, but as an iteration on the Pre-Load strategy it provided
valuable insight; Pre-Loads must be performed on wells that lie on the frac plane adjacent to the planned
infill wells. Table 2 presents a summary of the Hawkville Pre-Load trial.

Figure 18—Hawkville Pre-Load campaign.

18 SPE-191712-MS

To return the wells to production after the Pre-Loads, several of the wells required swabbing in. The
increase in water production, which was expected to a degree, required minor intervention to kick off
production. The increase in water oil ratio for these wells was higher than that observed in Eagle Ford and
it is suspected that the lack of use of any surfactant and solvent package was a contributing factor.
A secondary outcome of the Hawkville trial was to test the effectiveness of Pre-Load pumped without
the use of a chemical solvent or surfactant.

Table 2—Hawkville Pre-Load trial.

Well Name Mitigation Distance Pressure Communication Productivity Post Frac Hit

Well #1 20k Pre-load 1933’ Yes Increased

Well #2 20k Pre-load 660’ Yes No Change

Well #3 10k Pre-load 1100’ Yes No Change

Well #4 20k Pre-load 550’ (toe to toe) Yes No Change

Well #5 10k Pre-load 125’ (toe to toe) Yes No change

Well #6 Shut-In 660’ (heel to heel) Yes Decreased

Well #7 Shut-In 660’ (heel to heel) Yes Decreased

In summary, the following conclusions can be drawn from the Hawkville trial:
– Average parent production improved 12 BOE/d
– No major interventions required
– All child wells perform similarly, no deficit for well nearest to parent well
– Heel–to–heel offset well on frac azimuth, without pre-load, was frac hit
Overall, a successful implementation of the Pre-Load strategy was accomplished and valuable lessons
learned. Unlike the Eagle Ford trial, several of the Pre-Loaded wells in Hawkville did require swabbing in.

Permian
In parallel with the Hawkville trial, several Pre-Loads were performed in the Permian to assess Pre-Load
effectiveness in that field. Permian field development is still in its infant stages; the majority of development
is still HBP in nature with very few parent-child well interactions being encountered. The stage is not
dissimilar to the Eagle Ford of 2010. Like-wise, the go-to strategy for frac hit mitigation has been to simply
shut-in the parent well. Results to date have been less detrimental than those observed in the Eagle Ford.
However, an average negative outcome is still expected when completing new wells next to parent wells.
The objective then of the Pre-Load program was to test if the success of the Eagle Ford campaign could
be replicated in the Permian. Prior to commencing Pre-Load activity in the Permian, eight frac hits had
been observed. The production performance before and after the infill frac activity is shown in Fig. 19. The
figure plots the change in well production before and after the infill well completions. The size of the bubble
indicates the length of the shut-in. Similar to the Eagle Ford, shut-ins have been performed from as short as
1 day though to 30 days prior to the infill frac activity. The clear conclusions are:
– Parent well performance is reduced on average, but not as significantly as observed in Eagle Ford
– There is no pattern between shut-in duration and parent well performance after the infill frac
– Large well spacing does not mitigate impacts from frac hits
SPE-191712-MS 19

Figure 19—Permian shut-in frac hit mitigation parent well performance.

Similar to the Eagle Ford, this data set encompasses a number of different infill well completion designs,
which also do not impact the expected parent well outcome.
Given the minimal production impact of the infill completion compared to the Eagle Ford, an unfortunate
next step was that Frac and Flow was tested. The outcome was similar to the Eagle Ford observations, with
a substantial loss in production incurred. For the next 6 infill wells, however, Pre-Loads were performed,
and the production results from that trial are shown in Fig. 20.

Figure 20—Permian frac hit mitigation effectiveness.

20 SPE-191712-MS

Because the impacts from infill frac hits were not as severe in the Permian compared to the Eagle Ford,
the Pre-Load strategy was adapted to be a 10,000 bbl Pre-Load on the existing parent well, down from the
preferred 20,000 bbl in Eagle Ford. The results from this trial are depicted by the orange squares in Fig. 20
and the conclusion is that, on average, parent well production improved following the infill frac. All wells
also came back on to production without requiring any intervention.
As a next generation Pre-Load trial, a continuous pump-in operation was trialed. This involved pumping
a regular Pre-Load volume of fluid (10,000 bbl) immediately before the infill frac activity and continuing
to pump at low rates during the entirety of the infill frac. The total volume pumped was 50,000 bbl of
fluid, and the cost was several times higher than a regular Pre-Load. While the continuous Pre-Load
operation was successful in maintaining parent well production, the pressure and production response from
the well indicates that the benefit to Parent and Child well was not sufficient to economically support wider
implementation of the strategy compared to a regular Pre-Load.
Due to the operator's stage of development in Permian, there have not yet been any infill pads completed
next to parent wells to directly measure the impact of the Pre-Load on infill well production. However, the
performance for all infill wells completed next to a Pre-Loaded parent well is above type curve predictions.
The conclusions drawn from the Permian Pre-Load trial are:
– Shut-in method resulted in a predominantly negative outcome, despite large well spacings
– Pre-Loads statistically improve production of parent well
– Infill wells completed next to Pre-Loaded parent wells do not show signs of formation depletion
– No major interventions required to return parent wells to production
– Continuous pumping Pre-Load provided no incremental economic benefit

Conclusions
Following the success of the Pre-Load trial in Karnes and subsequent use in Hawkville and Permian, several
key observations and conclusions can be made in regards to the Pre-Load:
– Pre-Loads can provide a significant, temporary increase in fracture network pressure
– There is a short time window (~7 days) for the offset frac to start to achieve maximum pressure benefit
– Pre-loads do not reduce the magnitude of pressure seen on offset wells beyond hydrostatic differences
– Pre-Loading limits communication to two neighboring wellbores and allows third and subsequent
wells to remain on production
– Pre-Loads result in a statistically significant, favorable improvement in parent production
– Pre-Loads eliminate the performance deficit typically encountered by closest infill wells
– No Pre-Loaded well required a subsequent work over
– Pre-Loaded wells experience increased water production not correlating to volume pumped
– The Pre-Load itself does not impact well performance when performed as a standalone activity
The Pre-Load technique is simple and follows the basic recipe of:
– Large Volume
– Low rate
– Pre-Load two wells, regardless of distance
– Pre-Load offset wells on frac plane
– Put online parent wells immediately after infill frac
– Pre-load as close to start of frac as possible
– Include a chemical solvent and surfactant package
Fig. 21 illustrates what this strategy looks like for a basic lease arrangement
SPE-191712-MS 21

Figure 21—Pre-Load technique.

More than 50 Pre-Loads have now been pumped across the Eagle Ford, Hawkville, and Permian basins
with success rate of 98% in maintaining or improving parent well production. Pre-Loads have successfully
been executed on operated wells adjacent to offset operator infill activity in both the Eagle Ford and Permian,
where the same results have been achieved. Not a single Pre-Loaded well has required a major intervention
to return to production and all infill wells completed next to Pre-Loaded parent wells perform in-line with
their peer wells on the same pad, negating any production degradation due to completion next to existing
production. The Pre-Load technique is now employed as standard practice for the company and continues
to deliver predictable and positive results as infill development activity increases once again across North
American Shale.

Pre-Load Use to Accelerate Field Development Production

A scenario has been considered to test the impact that can be achieved by incorporating the Pre-Load strategy
into an overall field development plan. The scenario is depicted in Fig. 22 and is constructed as a typical
‘Focus Area’ approach. This type of development is popular for many shale producers when making the
move from HBP production to infill drilling. The focus of resources in an area makes the pad and facility
construction and drill and complete operations far more efficient with less wasted move time. The area
development also minimizes the size of the upfront and expensive midstream network build-out. However,
it poses a number of challenges with regards to managing frac communication between new wells.
The analysis is conducted as a with or without scenario where, in the base case, the operator is aware
of frac hit damage and develops a drill and complete plan that completely avoids frac hits by following a
sequential field development strategy. In the second scenario, the operator uses its knowledge of the Pre-
Load to plan a parallel development strategy, which avoids frac and drilling communication, but employs
Pre-Loads to prevent damage to newly put online producers, allowing for completion of new wells adjacent
to existing production.
Sequential Development:
– Eliminate frac hits entirely
– Sequential development of the leases:
○ Drill – Frac – Drill out – Tube-up – Put online
– Significant time from first spud to first production
– Large number of wells put online in a short space of time
22 SPE-191712-MS

Parallel Development:
– Honor same constraints as the Sequential Development to avoid drilling and frac interference
– Minimize spud to put online timing
– Increase capital efficiency
– Improve short term production volumes
–
For modeling purposes, the area is assumed to be in the Eagle Ford, industry average drill and complete
timings are used, and typical industry analyst costs are assumed for development and production of each
well. Industry analyst 2018 completion design type curves are used for production profile estimates, all
wells assumed to be identical performers, November 2017 flat pricing is used for production revenues, and
all cash flow is calculated undiscounted.
To be consistent between both scenarios and replicate the level of resources commonly employed by a
shale operator, the following assumptions are made about the development:
– Five mile-by-mile leases to be developed
– 10 wells per section with five wells per pad
– Maximum horizontal stress lies transverse across the well paths
– Two drill rigs
– Two frac spreads
– 2,500 ft spacing (indicated in grey) to be maintained between frac and drilling activity
– 2,500 ft spacing to be maintained between frac and producing wells, or:
○ Employ use of Pre-Load strategy with 20,000 bbl Pre-Load pumped on first offset and 10,000
bbl Pre-Load pumped on second offset

Fig. 22 represents the field layout and planned development.

Figure 22—Shale field development scenario.

With each cell representing a single day and cells color coded by activity, Fig. 23 maps the development
of the scenario for the sequential development strategy over a 456 day campaign length from first spud to
final put online.
SPE-191712-MS 23

Key metrics from the scenario are:

– 456 day campaign
– 1,147 well production days during the campaign
– Shortest spud to put online: 92 days
– Longest spud to put online: 415 days
– Average spud to put online: 250 days

Figure 23—Sequential field development scenario.

Fig. 24 shows the same 456 day calendar, this time for the parallel development scenario utilizing Pre-
Loads to mitigate against production loss and eliminate the need to delay well completion activities to
prevent frac hits.

Figure 24—Parallel field development scenario.

24 SPE-191712-MS

Key metrics for this scenario are:

– 417 day campaign
– 9,925 well producing days during the execution program
– Shortest spud to put online: 34 days
– Longest spud to put online: 189 days
– Average spud to put online: 87 days
Compared to the sequential field development strategy, the parallel development enabled by Pre-Loads
results in 7,518 additional well production days in the same 456 calendar day window. This acceleration in
production dramatically improves cash flow and revenue for the project, reduces maximum capital outlay
by over 40%, and accelerates the project break even by over 6 months. Fig. 25 plots the economic outcome
of the two projects over the first 4.5 years of development.

Figure 25—Undiscounted cumulative cash flow comparison of field development strategies.

Several key conclusions can be drawn from this work:

– Significant opportunity exists to utilize Pre-Loads as a frac hit management tool and accelerate put
online of new drill wells
– NPV improvements are only due to revenue acceleration (vs discount factor)
– Appreciable volume acceleration is realized during the campaign window
– Improve free cash flow by unlocking invested capital sooner
– Smooth production profile and minimize peak production rate
○ Reduced midstream stress
– Pre-Load costs would need to double from that assumed for the parallel development scenario to
reduce the economic benefit to a simple break-even with the sequential development scenario.
SPE-191712-MS 25

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the management of BHP for the permission to publish this work and especially the
personnel that were critical to the successful development and execution of the Karnes Pre-Load trial.

Nomenclature
BBL : Barrels of fluid
BOPD : Barrels of oil per day
GLV : Gas lift valve
HBP : Hold by production
POL : Put online
RTA : Rate transient analysis
SI : Shut-in
T/A : Temporarily abandon

References
Awada, A., Santo, M., Lougheed, D., Xu, D., & Virues, C. (2016, October 1). Is That Interference? A Work Flow for
Identifying and Analyzing Communication Through Hydraulic Fractures in a Multiwell Pad. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/178509-PA
Daneshy, A. (2017, October 9). Aggressive Fracturing Treatments in Horizontal Wells: Benefits and Pitfalls. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/187147-MS
Esquivel, R., & Blasingame, T. A. (2017, July 24). Optimizing the Development of the Haynesville Shale - Lessons
Learned from Well-to-Well Hydraulic Fracture Interference. Unconventional Resources Technology Conference.
doi:10.15530/URTEC-2017-2670079
Jacobs, T. (2017, April 1). Oil and Gas Producers Find Frac Hits in Shale Wells a Major Challenge. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/0417-0029-JPT
King, G. E., Rainbolt, M. F., & Swanson, C. (2017, October 9). Frac Hit Induced Production Losses: Evaluating Root
Causes, Damage Location, Possible Prevention Methods and Success of Remedial Treatments. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi: 10.2118/187192-MS
Lawal, H., Abolo, N., Jackson, G., Sahai, V., & Flores, C. P. (2014, May 21). A Quantitative Approach to Analyze Fracture
Area Loss in Shale Gas Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/169406-MS
Potluri, N. K., Zhu, D., & Hill, A. D. (2005, January 1). The Effect of Natural Fractures on Hydraulic Fracture Propagation.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/94568-MS
Pyecroft, J., Lehmann, J., Petr, C., Lypkie, K., Purdy, I., Zafar, H., … Meeks, D. (2016, February 1). Interwell Hydraulic
Fracture Interaction Between Multistage Stimulated Wells and a Multi Zone Slant Open Hole Observation Well Placed
in the Canadian Horn River Basin. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/179174-MS
Rainbolt, M. F., & Esco, J. (2018, January 23). Frac Hit Induced Production Losses: Evaluating Root Causes, Damage
Location, Possible Prevention Methods and Success of Remediation Treatments, Part II. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/189853-MS
Sardinha, C. M., Petr, C., Lehmann, J., Pyecroft, J. F., & Merkle, S. (2014, September 30). Determining Interwell
Connectivity and Reservoir Complexity Through Frac Pressure Hits and Production Interference Analysis. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/171628-MS
Savitski, A. A., Lin, M., Riahi, A., Damjanac, B., & Nagel, N. B. (2013, March 26). Explicit Modeling of Hydraulic
Fracture Propagation in Fractured Shales. International Petroleum Technology Conference. doi:10.2523/IPTC-17073-
MS
Wu, K., Wu, B., & Yu, W. (2018, February 1). Mechanism Analysis of Well Interference in Unconventional Reservoirs:
Insights From Fracture-Geometry Simulation Between Two Horizontal Wells. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/186091-PA