DE-AC21-94MC31112 (6020)

New and Novel Fracture Stimulation Technologies for the Revitalization of Existing Gas Storage Wells: Interim Project Results

Status Report October 1, 1994 - March 31, 1998

Work Performed Under Contract No.: DE-AC21-94MC31112

For U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy Federal Energy Technology Center P.O. Box 880 Morgantown, West Virginia 26507-0880

By Advanced Resources International, Inc. 9801 Westheimer Suite 805 Houston, Texas 77042

Disclaimer

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

New and Novel Fracture Stimulation Technologies for the Revitalization of Existing Gas Storage Wells: Interim Project Results and Status Report (October 1, 1994 through March 31, 1998)
An R&D Demonstration Program Jointly Sponsored By: U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Technology Center Contract No. DE-AC21-94MC31112 and Gas Research Institute Contract No. 5097-270-4057 Performed By: Advanced Resources International, Inc. Cooperative Research Partners: CNG Transmission Corporation Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation Consumers Power Company East Ohio Gas Company KN Energy Incorporated MichCon Gas Company National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation Natural Gas Pipeline Company June 1998

Executive Summary
Gas storage wells are prone to continued deliverability loss at a reported average rate of 5% per annum (in the U.S.) as a result of formation damage, such damage being attributed to the introduction of foreign materials during gas injection, scale deposition and/or fines mobilization during gas withdrawal, and even the formation and growth of bacteria. As a means to bypass this damage and sustain/enhance well deliverability, several new and novel fracture-stimulation technologies are being tested in gas storage fields across the U.S. as part of a joint U.S. Department of Energy and Gas Research Institute R&D program. These new technologies include tip-screenout fracturing, hydraulic fracturing with liquid CO2 and proppant, extreme overbalance fracturing, and high-energy gas fracturing. Each of these technologies in some way address areas of concern with fracturing for gas storage operators, such as fracture height growth, high permeability formations, and fluid sensitivity. The project methodology is to rely predominately on field testing to accomplish the research objectives. As such, after having first identified those fracturing technologies which appear to hold promise for application to gas storage wells, a series of field tests are being performed for demonstration purposes in various reservoir settings. Specifically, nine field tests are being performed, distributed among the storage reservoir types in similar proportion as their relative share of total storage reservoirs. Each test site is used to investigate one fracture-stimulation technology and consists of four test wells, three in which the new and novel technique is utilized and one control well in which a conventional well enhancement method is implemented as a performance benchmark. As of March 31, 1998, a total of six field tests (out of the planned total of nine) were in various stages of field investigation; fracturing operations at all sites has been nearly completed, and primarily annual post-stimulation testing remains for each. The six sites are located in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Nebraska. Three of the current sites have tested tip-screenout fracturing, one liquid CO 2 with proppant, and two extreme overbalance fracturing. In total, 21 new and novel fracture treatments have been performed to date as part of this project, 78 deliverability and pressure transient tests, 24 fracture diagnostics tests performed (e.g., mini-fracs, step-rate tests, BHTP measurements etc.), and 13 fracture height surveys run (e.g., radioactive tracer, temperature, downhole camera surveys), among other tests and diagnostics. Significant accomplishments to date have been numerous. First, the potential application of the various new and novel fracture stimulation technologies to gas storage wells has been demonstrated, and guidelines developed for their selection and design. Secondly, a lack of analytical design tools has been identified for some of the fracture-stimulation technologies being investigated. In response, a first-of-a-kind simulator has been developed to model the extreme overbalance fracturing process, and for the first time EOB downhole pressure records have been collected for analysis. Similar technology needs in other areas are now being addressed. Finally, a comprehensive dataset of multi-point deliverability and pressure transient tests, a rarity in the gas storage industry, has been assembled. This has provided a unique insight into the impact of stimulation on gas storage wells, particularly with respect to the elimination of important non-Darcy flow effects, deliverability profiles, and how these factors change over time. Based on the results derived from the project thus far, the following interim conclusions have been drawn:
DME971A6.WPD

ix

New and novel fracture stimulation technologies can provide attractive deliverability enhancement results while at the same time addressing the special requirements of gas storage wells (e.g., fracture height growth, high permeability formations, fluid sensitivity). Gas storage formations appear to be highly sensitive to even small amounts of liquids, which apparently act to temporarily reduce near-well permeability to gas. Non-aqueous stimulation fluids, such as liquid CO2 , seem to provide more immediate stimulation benefits without the prolonged fluid cleanup time typical of aqueous-liquid methods. Lack of satisfactory understanding of certain stimulation processes, most notably liquid CO 2 fracturing and extreme overbalance fracturing, is likely to lead to high failure rates with these methods in the short run. However, this should not be mistaken as a problem with the stimulation concept, but rather viewed as a technology need to be met. Methods typically used by industry today to measure and monitor well deliverabilities can frequently be misleading and/or incorrect altogether. More advanced (yet cost-effective) methods are needed such that storage operators can best understand the impact of various well intervention activities on deliverability. A rigorous approach to analyzing the economic benefits of various stimulation technologies is required such that gas storage operators can select the most cost-effective deliverability enhancement technique for a given situation.

DME971A6.WPD

with considerable associated benefits (such as reducing industry's deliverability maintenance costs). Further, based on the success (or lack thereof) of the various fracture stimulation technologies, being investigated guidelines for the application, design and implementation of the new and novel methods are being developed. A final research objective is to effectively deploy the knowledge and experience gained from the project to the gas storage industry at-large. 1.3 R&D Methodology

Given the nature of the project, namely that it is a field demonstration project, the methodology is to rely predominately on field testing to accomplish the research objectives. As such, after having first identified those fracturing technologies which appear to hold promise for application to gas storage wells, a series of field tests are being performed for demonstration purposes in various reservoir settings. Specifically, nine field tests are being performed, distributed among the storage reservoir types in similar proportion as their relative share of total storage reservoirs (Table 2). Each test site is used to investigate fracture-stimulation one technology and consists of four test wells, three in which the new and novel technique is utilized and one control well in which the operators' conventional well enhancement method is implemented as a performance benchmark. Table 2 Mix of Reservoir Types and Proposed Test Sites Reservoir Type Depleted Oil or Gas Reservoir Lithology5 (% of total storage reservoirs) Sandstone (54%) Carbonate (21%) Aquifer Sandstone (18%) Carbonate (7%) Number of Proposed Test Sites 4-5 2-3 1-2 Maybe 1

Each field demonstration project consists of four key elements as follows: 1) deliverability enhancement evaluation; 2) treatment design and analysis; 3) maintaining caprock integrity; and 4) technology transfer (Figure 1). These are each described below. First, to assess the deliverability enhancement performance of the new versus currently used well treatment methods, pre- and post-treatment deliverability and pressure transient well testing is performed in all test wells, and again one year later to evaluate the sustainability of deliverability enhancement achieved with each approach. Second, state-of-the-art design tools, such as hydraulic fracturing and pulse-fracturing models, are being utilized to design the different fracturing treatments to maximize success as well as understanding. Along these same lines, leading stimulation and rock mechanics experts, plus laboratory/wireline measurements of rock properties and in-situ stresses, are being utilized to fully understand the project results.

DME971B6.WPD

1-3

Objective

PreFracturing
Deliverability and Pressure Transient Testing Control Well Benchmarking Stress and Rock Property Profiling Fracture Modelling

During Treatment

PostFracturing
Deliverability and Pressure Transient Testing Control Well Benchmarking

Long-Term
Deliverability and Pressure Transient Testing Control Well Benchmarking

Deliverability Enhancement Evaluation

Treatment Design and Analysis

BHTP Monitoring

Fracture Modelling

Maintain Caprock Integrity

Cement Evaluation Logging Fracture Modelling

BHTP Monitoring, Contingency Planning

Fracture Height Logging Fracture Modelling

Technology Transfer

Operator/ARI/ DOE/GRI Working Partnerships Technical Publications and Reports

Operator/ARI/ DOE/GRI Working Partnerships Technical Publications Reports

Operator/ARI/ DOE/GRI Working Partnerships Technical Publications and Reports

Operator/ARI/ DOE/GRI Working Partnerships Technical Publications and Reports

DME00499.PPT

Figure 1 Key Elements of Project Technical Approach

DME971B6.WPD

1-4

3.0

Individual Test Site Results

As of March 31, 1998, a total of six field tests (out of a planned total of nine) were in various stages of field investigation; fracturing operations at all sites has been nearly completed, and primarily annual post-stimulation testing remains for each. The locations of the six sites are illustrated in Figure 8 which also provides the operator and stimulation technology being investigated at each. Descriptive data on each site are also provided in Table 3. Three of the current sites have tested tip-screenout fracturing, one liquid CO 2 with proppant, and two extreme overbalance fracturing. Table 4 presents the test matrix as developed thus far in the project.
Figure 8 Location of Test Sites
Overisel Test Site Consumers Power Tip-Screenout Huntsman Test Site KN Energy Tip-Screenout

Stark-Summit Test Site East Ohio Gas Tip-Screenout

Galbraith Test Site National Fuel Liquid CO2 w/Proppant

Oakford Test Site CNG Transmission Extreme Overbalance

Donegal Test Site Columbia Gas Extreme Overbalance

JAF00431.PPT

Table 5 presents the field activities performed to date in the project. In total, 21 new and novel fracture treatments have been performed as part of this project, 78 deliverability and pressure transient tests, 24 fracture diagnostics tests performed (e.g., mini-fracs, step-rate tests, BHTP measurements etc.), and 13 fracture height surveys run (e.g., radioactive tracer, temperature, downhole camera surveys), among other tests and diagnostics. This section describes the results and findings of these activities at each site. 3.1 Deliverability and Pressure Transient Testing Program

Before describing the activities and results for each test site, some description and discussion regarding the deliverability and pressure transient testing program is warranted. This is because, for perhaps the first time detailed information on the impact of fracturing on gas storage well deliverability and completion (stimulation) efficiency in a relatively controlled manner has been collected and published. The information is of a type and quantity that is difficult to present in a concise manner without losing some of the important insights derived, hence this discussion.
DME971E6.WPD

3-1

Table 3 Test Site Descriptive Data

Site Company Technology Location Discovery Yr. Storage Yr. Formation Age Reservoir Type/Trap Type Reservoir Name Depth Thickness No. I/W wells Working Gas Volume Max. Deliv. Max. Pres. Huntsman KN Energy Tip-Screenout Cheyenne Co., NE 1950 1963 Cretaceous Deplet. Gas, SS/Structural 3rd Dakota J Sand 4,800 ft. 30 ft. 18 19,910 MMcf 39 MMcfd 1,169 psig Stark-Summit East Ohio Gas Tip-Screenout Stark and Summit Cos., OH 1927 1941 Silurian Deplet. Gas, SS/Sandstone White Clinton Sand 4,300 ft. 23 ft. 610 19,352 MMcf n/a n/a Overisel Consumers Power Tip-Screenout Allegan Co., MI 1956 1960 Silurian Deplet. Gas, Carb./Structural A-2 Dolomite 2,600 ft. 40 ft. 162 12,346 MMcf 200 MMcfd 1,640 psig Galbraith National Fuel Liquid CO2 w/Proppant Jefferson Co., PA 1917 1937 Devonian Deplet. Gas, SS/Stratigraphic 1st Sheffield Sand 2,800 ft. 24 ft. 26 632 MMcf 20 MMcfd 620 psig Donegal Columbia Gas Extreme Overbalance Washington Co., PA 1907 1940 Devonian Deplet. Gas, SS/Stratigraphic Gordon Stray Sand 2,600 ft. 10 ft. 112 3,592 MMcf 223 MMcfd 1,260 psig Oakford CNG Transmission Extreme Overbalance Westmoreland Co., PA 1887 1951 Devonian Deplet. Gas, SS/Stratigraphic Fifth Sand 2,300 ft. 25 ft. 231 57,001 MMcf 775 MMcfd 440 psig

DME971E6.WPD

3-2

Table 4 Mix of Reservoir Types, Stimulation Technologies and Test Sites Reservoir Type Reservoir Lithology
(% of total storage reservoirs)

Hydraulic Tip Screenout Huntsman, Stark-Summit Overisel -

Pulse

Liquid CO2 Extreme Propellant w/Proppant Overbalance Galbraith Donegal, Oakford -

Depleted Oil or Gas

Sandstone (54%) Carbonate (21%)

Aquifer

Sandstone (18%) Carbonate (7%)

DME971E6.WPD

3-3

Table 5 Summary of Field Activities Performed to Date

Activity Huntsman Stark-Summit Overisel Galbraith Donegal Oakford Total

New and Novel Fracture Treatments Performed Pre-Fracture Deliverability and Pressure Transient Tests Performed/Analyzed Acoustic Logs Run/Analyzed Cores Taken/Tested Step-Rate Tests Performed/Analyzed Mini-Fracs Performed/Analyzed Main Frac Bottomhole Treating Pressure Records Radioactive Tracer Surveys Temperature Surveys Downhole Camera Surveys Post-Fracture Deliverability and Pressure Transient Tests Performed/Analyzed Annual Deliverability and Pressure Transient Tests Performed/ Analyzed

2 7 2 4 2 3 3 3

5 25 1 1 1 1 4

3 4 3 3 3 1 2

3 3 3

6 6 1 6 2 1 4 5

2 4 2 2 2

21 49 1 6 8 9 7 9 4 19

10

DME971E6.WPD

3-4

Several aspects of the testing deliverability and transient program make it unique. In particular, 1) the evaluation of multi-point deliverability data to document the impact of fracturing on the slope of the deliverability curve, 2) the analysis of non-Darcy flow and how it is affected by fracturing, and 3) the collection of deliverability and pressure transient data at different points in time to begin to understand the time-dependancy of treatment effectiveness. The test procedures typically follow the modified isochronal method, whereby a well is flowed at several rates and levels of pressure drawdown for several hours, each flow period being followed by a shut-in period of equal or greater duration than the preceding flow period. For this project, four flow/shut-in periods were utilized to establish a deliverability curve with confidence, the first three flow periods were typically two to four hours in duration each, with the final flow/shut-in period being considerably longer (four to eight hours) to ensure stabilized rates were achieved and that a transient pressure analysis could be performed. The shut-in periods typically lasted twice as long as the preceding flow periods. Pressures were recorded with downhole electronic gauges, and gas rates with surface metering equipment. A typical bottomhole pressure and gas rate profile for one of the tests is illustrated in Figure 9. This particular example is the post-stimulation anniversary test for well #2960 at the Galbraith field. The logarithmic and semi-log analytic plots for the final shut-in period are provided in Figures 10 and 11, and illustrate the generally high quality of the data collected. Note the interference (or boundary) effects observed at the latter stages of the shut-in period; this observation was frequent in the data collected throughout the project. Each shut-in period was similarly analyzed to arrive at an estimate of formation permeability (to gas), and total skin factor (a sum of both true skin - i.e., mechanical - and that attributed to non-Darcy flow effects, but without being able to allocate the relative contribution of each). The multi-point data was utilized for that purpose. The first utility of the multi-point data was to establish a deliverability curve. The deliverability curve for this example is illustrated in Figure 12. As can be seen, the use of four flow periods which should plot along a straight line on a deliverability curve provides a high level of confidence in the result. The important parameter to the deliverability curve is the factor "n", which is the inverse of the slope of the deliverability curve. This factor ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, where 1.0 usually represents a more favorable condition (i.e., the flattest deliverability curve). In this example, the factor n is 0.78. Of importance to this project is how the fracture stimulation technologies being studied impact this n factor. The pre-and post-stimulation values for "n" are hence provided in the results tables for each of the project test sites.

DME971E6.WPD

3-5

Figure 9 Example Pressure and Flow Rate Response from a Deliverability and Pressure Transient Test

DME971E6.WPD

3-6

Figure 10 Example Logarithmic Plot for the Final Shut-In Period

DME971E6.WPD

3-7

Figure 11 Example Semi-Log Plot for the Final Shut-In Period

DME971E6.WPD

3-8

Figure 12 Example Deliverability Curve

DME971E6.WPD

3-9

The second utility of the multi-point data is to separate the skin factor for a particular well into its respective true and non-Darcy components. By plotting the total skin derived for each flow period versus the flow rate, and extrapolating that line back to a flow rate of zero, the true skin can be determined. That plot for the example test is presented in Figure 13. The slope of the line, the non-Darcy component "D", can be used to estimate the non-Darcy skin at any flow rate. Decreasing the value of this component represents a reduction in non-Darcy skin, a favorable outcome. As such, the value for this component is also presented for each test. What should be remembered, however, is that deliverability responses to the treatments are also presented in the results at mid-season operating conditions (i.e., at a delta pressure squared value that is typical for a field in the middle of the withdrawal season). Since the mid-season deliverability of a well can improve substantially after a fracture stimulation treatment, the actual value of the non-Darcy skin can increase at this given value of delta pressure squared (due to a higher flow rate) suggesting that it has been adversely affected, when in fact the value for the non-Darcy component "D" has actually decreased. This distinction is important when reviewing the test results. With this introduction to the yardsticks by which well improvements are being measured in this project, the following sections describe the current results from each test site.

DME971E6.WPD

3-10

Figure 13 Example Non-Darcy Flow Analysis Plot

DME971E6.WPD

3-11

3.2.2 Stark-Summit Test Site, Ohio Site Description. The Stark-Summit storage area consists of the Chippewa and Stark-Summit storage pools. Actual reservoir limits extend over approximately 47,000 acres in Stark, Summit and Wayne Counties, Ohio, (Figure 25). The Chippewa field is the oldest field in the area that is used for gas storage and was discovered in 1918; Stark-Summit, also originally a gas field, was discovered in 1927. Conversion of the area for gas storage began in 1941. Currently, there are 102 wells at Chippewa, with 99 wells actively used for injection/withdrawal and the remaining wells used for observation. The larger Stark-Summit Field currently has approximately 610 injection/withdrawal wells. Both fields are primarily developed in the Silurian Lower Clinton (White) Sand, averaging 23 ft in thickness (Figure 26), although the Red Clinton is also completed and used for storage in some wells. The Chippewa reservoir provides peaking deliverability for the East Ohio Gas (EOG) service area. The average reservoir depth is 3,700 feet with 10% porosity and a permeability up to 30 millidarcies. The maximum allowable wellhead shut-in pressure is 1,425 psig. Chippewa has a storage capacity of 10 Bcf, with approximately 2 Bcf classified as working gas. The Stark-Summit reservoir provides base load capacity for EOGs service area. The average depth is 4,250 feet with 10% porosity but somewhat lower permeability, normally 3 to 10 millidarcies. The maximum allowed wellhead shut-in pressure is also 1,425 psig. Stark-Summit has a storage capacity of 108 Bcf, with approximately 19 Bcf classified as working gas. When EOG acquired gas storage rights and began storage operations in the area in 1941, StarkSummit contained 339 active wells. In addition to the initial 339 active wells, a phased development drilling program was followed during the next 20 years, as shown in Figure 27. Initially, a well spacing of 40 acres was utilized for development, although in the central areas of Chippewa field well spacing is closer to 20 acres. As the infill drilling program was completed, a workover program for the older wells began.

dme971E6a.wpd

3-29

Figure 25 Location of the Chippewa and Stark-Summit Storage Fields, Ohio

dme971E6a.wpd

3-30

Figure 26 Typical Gamma Ray Response, Stark-Summit Field

dme971E6a.wpd

3-31

Figure 27 Stark-Summit Field Development Drilling Phases

Duri
dme971E6a.wpd

3-32

ng the early 1950's it became apparent that effective well stimulation would be necessary to maximize gas injection and withdrawal from the low permeability Clinton sandstone. A program was therefore initiated to hydraulically fracture every well in the field. Since 1970, an average of twenty-five wells have been fractured each year. Most wells have now been fractured at least twice. Earlier treatments used gelled fuel oil, whereas later jobs have used water, water-based gel and nitrogen foam. Owing to the long and continuing history of fracturing in the area, EOG has invested considerable effort to use available fracturing data to identify the parameters that have the most influence for successful stimulations; prior flow performance, higher proppant volume, higher proppant concentration, higher fluid viscosity and higher pump rate all have been determined to be important factors for effective hydraulic fracturing at the field 6, 7,8,9. Fracture Technology Selection. Initially, the Stark-Summit storage area was considered for the application of liquid CO2 fracturing. Based on short-term, single-point deliverability tests, earlier fracture treatments seemed to require several years to cleanup to meet or exceed the pre-frac deliverability levels. Hence liquid CO2 fracturing was viewed as a possible approach to realize more immediate benefits from fracturing without the lengthy cleanup times normally associated with aqueous-based fracturing fluids. Even though the wells had been previously fractured, experience from previously fractured wells in other fields suggested that older frac jobs may eventually lose conductivity and their transient linear flow behavior; therefore extreme fluid loss associated with a preexisting fracture was not in and of itself believed to be a reason to disqualify the liquid CO 2 approach for the field (liquid CO 2 is believed to have high fluid leakoff properties). In addition, the low to moderate formation permeability indicated it was in the range believed applicable for liquid CO2 for the same reason (i.e., less fluid leakoff). However, the utility of tip-screenout fracturing was also seriously considered, particularly in light of the earlier analytic work that suggested superior deliverability gains were attained in wells where higher proppant volumes, proppant concentrations, fluid viscosities and pump rates were used. This consideration was further strengthened by a recent success with a high proppant concentration treatment performed as part of the GRI Advanced Stimulation Technology (AST) program 10, which showed that wells could be effectively stimulated using this approach. The choice between liquid CO2 with proppant and tip-screenout fracturing was clarified once deliverability and pressure transient testing of potential candidate wells was begun. Testing revealed that most potential candidate wells retained a negative true skin factor, but exhibited non-Darcy flow behavior. Because of this it was surmised that the opportunity for deliverability enhancement was in the mitigation of non-Darcy flow effects, requiring that highly conductive fractures be created. Thus, tip-screenout fracturing was ultimately selected as the preferred stimulation technique at the field. Test Well Selection. Wells in both the Chippewa and Stark-Summit fields were considered as test wells for this project. Preliminary test well selections were based on single-point deliverability data, specifically where substantial declines in deliverability were indicated. However, subsequent multi-point deliverability and pressure buildup tests suggested that most wells in both the Chippewa and Stark-Summit storage pools appeared to be effectively stimulated (and that the single-point deliverability test data may not be a reliable indicator of well condition or stimulation potential, even in a relative sense). An extensive deliverability and pressure transient testing program was therefore undertaken in both pools to select the candidate wells. Results from that testing program are provided in Table 8.
dme971E6a.wpd

3-33

Table 8 Pre-Stimulation Deliverability and Pressure Transient Test Results, Stark-Summit and Chippewa Fields
Well Number Test Date Permeability (md) Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 Total @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 D
(1/Mcfd,x103)

Deliverability (MMcfd) @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 AOF @ 1645 psi n

(MMcfd/psia 2)

Remarks

Stark-Summit (base-load) 2471 2571 1885 1685 1165 1187 1218 1384 May 97 May 97 Jun 97 n/a Jun 97 Jun 97 Jun 97 Jul 97 7.2 7.3 31.9 3.9 6.8 21.7 0.6 7.4 -2.9 -5.0 -4.3 n/a n/a -4.0 n/a n/a +4.3 +4.6 +4.4 n/a n/a +3.1 n/a n/a 1.4 -0.4 +0.1 -5.5 -5.4 -0.9 -3.1 -3.9 0.5 0.8 0.2 n/a n/a 0.6 n/a n/a 8.4 6.0 18.0 10.9 n/a 5.0 0.8 11.0 17.9 13.2 39.5 52.1 n/a 99.9 1.4 26.0 0.75 0.78 0.79 1.00 n/a 0.72 0.60 0.84 TSO Frac #1 TSO Frac #2 TSO Frac #3 AST Well, Post-Frac

Well Number

Test Date

Permeability (md)

Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 Total @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 D

(1/Mcfd,x103)

Deliverability (MMcfd) @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 AOF @ 1645 psi n

(MMcfd/psia 2)

Remarks

1415 1551 1656

Jun 97 Jun 97 Jun 97 Jun 97 Nov 96 Jun 97 Jul 97 Nov 96 Jun 97

3.4 2.1 3.8

n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a n/a

-4.8 0.0 -4.7

n/a n/a n/a

7.0 1.5 13.0

18.4 2.9 24.2

1.00 0.70 0.65 16/30 Proppant Frac #2

2130 2186 2207 2233 2480 2467

13.3 40.0 9.1 4.3 18.0 26.9

n/a -4.7 n/a n/a -4.1 n/a

n/a +4.6 n/a n/a -3.6 n/a

-3.7 -0.1 -3.2 -4.0 -0.5 -3.3

n/a 0.2 n/a n/a 0.0 n/a

4.4 20.0 8.0 5.6 5.0 11.0

9.2 55.0 18.3 15.0 10.1 26.9

0.75 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.78 0.87

Well Number

Test Date

Permeability (md)

Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 Total @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 D

(1/Mcfd,x103)

Deliverability (MMcfd) @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 AOF @ 1645 psi n

(MMcfd/psia 2)

Remarks

2918

May 97

2.4

n/a

n/a

-1.9

n/a

3.5

4.1

0.73

Chippewa (peaking)
Well Number 1861 Test Date Oct 96 Permeability (md) 35.0 True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 1,840,352 +4,2 Total @ Delta P2 = 1,840,352 -0.7 D (1/Mcfd, x103) 0.2 @ Delta P2 = 1,840,352 26.0 AOF @ 1645 psi 40.9 n (MMcfd/psia 2) 0.91 Remarks

-4.9

16/30 Proppant Frac #1

1874 2080 2093 2096 2481 2557

Oct 96 Oct 96 Oct 96 Oct 96 Jun 97 Jun 97

17.3 14.0 8.0 8.3 5.3 9.4

-6.0 -3.6 -5.1 n/a n/a n/a

+5.4 +10.4 +2.1 n/a n/a n/a

-0.6 +6.8 -3.0 +5.0 -4.1 -3.7

0.0 1.7 0.0 n/a n/a n/a

15.0 6.1 7.2 1.8 30.0 41.0

21.6 8.0 10.1 2.3 43.6 61.7

0.92 0.67 0.82 0.80 0.89 0.99

What can be seen from these results is the pervasiveness of negative total skins throughout the dataset, even after accounting for non-Darcy effects at mid-season operating conditions (where possible). Since true (mechanical) skins were highly negative without exception (at least in those wells where non-Darcy flow analyses could be performed), the primary selection criteria became where minimization or elimination of non-Darcy skin effects could be achieved. Based on this criteria, three wells (#2471, #2571, and #1885) were selected for TSO fracturing. Note that the well stimulated as part of GRIs AST program (#1685) appeared to be highly stimulated after the high sand concentration treatment and provided some encouragement regarding the potential outcomes of the TSO treatments. Figure 28 illustrates the single-point deliverability histories for each of the test wells which, based on this data, suggests that deliverabilities have been declining at a rate of 1 to 2% per year for wells #2471 and #2571 since the 1970's; well #1885 also followed this trend until 1986 at which time the data indicates an unexplained sharp improvement through 1993. Since then, however, the deliverability for this well appears to have dropped precipitously at a rate of 10% per year. This plot highlights the uncertainty and erratic nature of short-term, surface, single-point deliverability tests as a diagnostic tool. Treatment Design and Execution. Due to the extensive use of conventional hydraulic fracturing at the field, concerns over fracture height growth were considerably less than at the Huntsman field; the overlying Red Clinton is a tight, non-productive sand in this area. Therefore, the diagnostics program called for mini-frac analysis and fracture height surveys on the first well only. A step-rate test and a mini-frac were performed on the first well, #2471, on September 7, 1997. The mini-frac consisted of 8,000 gals of 30 lb/Mgal linear gel pumped at 20 bpm. A temperature log run after the mini-frac suggested considerable fracture height growth as predicted by pre-fracture modelling studies (Figure 29), but again this was not viewed as problematic by the operator. The main treatment was performed on September 11. It was designed to achieve a propped fracture length of 180 ft by placing 70,000 lbs of 20/40 Ottawa sand with 23,000 gals of 30 lb/Mgal linear gel at a concentration up to 8 ppg and at a pump rate of 20 bpm. The surface treatment record, shown in Figure 30, indicates that a screenout was achieved, however it occurred prematurely during the 5 ppg stage and apparently in the near-well region based on the rapid rate of pressure increase. As a result of the early screenout, only 26,000 lbs of proppant (of the designed 70,000 lbs) was actually placed. Post-treatment analysis suggested the presence of a near-well restriction; it was subsequently discovered that a low perforation density existed in the well (<2 spf at 0 o phasing), perhaps contributing to this outcome. Post-treatment fracture modelling suggested that a fracture of 100 feet long with a conductivity of only 380 md-ft was created, less favorable than anticipated due to the early screenout. A post-treatment radioactive tracer survey (scandium tracer was run with the proppant) indicated proppant placement primarily across the White Clinton Sand, with some proppant placement in the lower part of the Red Clinton, which had a few perforations open in this well (Figure 31).

3-37

Figure 28 Deliverability Histories of the Stark-Summit Test Wells

6 ,0 0 0 D e c lin e o f 9 .9 % p e r y e a r

4 ,0 0 0 Q100, Mcf/day

D e c lin e o f 0 .9 % p e r y e a r 2 ,0 0 0

D e c lin e o f 1 .4 % p e r y e a r 0 76 80 84 88 92 96

Figure 29 Post-Mini-Frac Temperature Log, Stark-Summit #2471

3600

3650

3700

3750

D epth, ft.

3800

3850

3900 W Sand hite 3950

4000 80

82

84

86

88

90

Tem perature, deg. F (base log) Base Log Tem perature Survey Post-M ini-Frac Tem perature Survey

3-39

Figure 31 Post-Treatment Radioactive Tracer Survey, Stark-Summit #2471

3860

3880

3900

Depth, ft.

3920

3940

3960

White Sand

3980 0 10000 20000

Total Counts Scandium 46

3-41

The second treatment was performed on well #2571 on September 15. The major adjustment to the design was a reduction of maximum sand concentration to 6 ppg (and as a consequence total sand volume) in response to the low perforation density, and an increase in proppant volumes at the lesser sand concentrations. This treatment was designed to achieve a propped fracture length of 140 ft by pumping 41,000 lbs of 20/40 Ottawa sand in 20,000 gals of 30 lb/Mgals linear gel at 20 bpm. The surface treatment record, shown in Figure 32, indicates that again a rapid near-well screenout occurred during the 5 ppg stage. However in this case, due to the design adjustment in anticipation of this problem, almost all of the designed proppant volume had been pumped. The final fracture geometry, based on post- treatment modelling, was an estimated length of 150 ft with an average conductivity of 1180 md-ft, much better than for the previous well.

3-42

The final test well, #1885, was fracture-treated on September 17. Prior to the treatment the well was reperforated with 4 spf to mitigate the potential for an early near-well screenout as observed in the previous two wells, but still not increasing the maximum sand concentration over the 6 ppg level. A further reduction in proppant volumes in the latter, higher-concentration portions of the treatment in response to the continued screenout difficulties resulted in a less-favorable design fracture conductivity. This treatment was predicted to provide a propped fracture 150 ft long by placing 40,000 lbs of 20/40 Ottawa sand in 19,000 gals of 30 lbs/Mgal linear gel at 20 bpm. The surface treatment record, shown in Figure 33, illustrates that the treatment was pumped as planned, with a tip-screenout apparantly being achieved and without the previously experienced near-well difficulties. However, the level of pressure increase achieved was less than with the previous two wells, resulting in less proppant packing and ultimately fracture conductivity. Post-treatment modelling suggested that a fracture 190 ft long with a conductivity of 890 md-ft was created. More importantly, however, is that reperforating may permit the use of higher sand concentrations in future wells by avoiding the near-well difficulties further improving stimulation results. Post-Treatment Testing. To date, post-treatment deliverability and pressure transient tests have been performed on two of the test wells. The results, provided in Table 9, suggest that the TSO-treatments provided modest immediate reductions in non-Darcy and total skins. Note that the lower values of both permeability and true skins from these post-frac tests may imply fluid damage, similar to that observed at the Huntsman site. Cleanup over time should result in an improvement in these results, which should be clarified with the annual deliverability tests. Remaining Work. Remaining work program as part of the R&D project at the StarkSummit site is limited to performing the post-stimulation test on well #2571, and the annual deliverability tests. However it should be noted that following the implementation of the TSO treatments, later in September EOG was sufficiently encouraged that they performed two additional TSO jobs which were also analyzed as part of this R&D project. In those treatments, a significant design change was to utilize 16/30 proppant in an effort to further improve fracture conductivity and minimize non-Darcy flow effects. Those treatments, performed on wells #1861 (Chippewa pool) and #1656 (Stark-Summit pool), consisted of 20,000-30,000 lbs of 16/30 Ottawa sand in 11,00013,000 gals of nitrogen foam (pad) plus a light-concentration borate crosslinked gel (for the proppant-laden stages) pumped at a rate of 18 bpm and at a maximum sand concentration of 6 ppg. Both treatments were pumped very close to design, with tip-screenout behavior being observed for each; Figures 34 and 35 provide the surface treating records. In addition, these wells did not possess any perforation restrictions as existed in the earlier test wells; well #1861 had a high perforation density and well #1656 was completed with a slotted liner. Post-treatment modeling suggested created fracture lengths of 80-100 ft with conductivities of 1,500-1,900 md-ft. Clearly, the combination of an unrestricted completion plus coarser proppants provided a more desirable outcome. Multi-point deliverability and pressure transient tests performed after these treatments indicated an increase in total skin factor, and a corresponding decline in deliverability (Table 10), similar to the first TSO treatments. While it is uncertain at this time, this may be merely another manifestation of post-treatment fluid damage; annual testing should also provide further insight into the long-term performance of these treatments.

3-44

Table 9 Pre/Post-Stimulation Deliverability and Pressure Transient Test Results, Stark-Summit Field PreStimulation #2471 (TSO #1, September 1997) Test Date Permeability, md Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 Total @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 D (1/Mcfd, x103) Deliverability, MMcfd @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 AOF @ 1,645 psia n (MMcfd/psia2) #2571 (TSO #2, September 1997) Test Date Permeability, md Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 Total @ Delta P2 = 1,036,057 D (1/Mcfd, x103) Deliverability, MMcfd @ Delta P2 = 1,036,057 AOF @ 1,645 psia n (MMcfd/psia2) May 97 7.3 -5.0 +4.6 -0.4 0.8 6.0 13.2 0.78 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a May 97 7.2 -2.9 +4.3 +1.4 0.5 8.4 17.9 0.75 Dec 97 4.1 -2.6 +3.9 +1.3 0.9 4.4 8.4 .65 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a PostStimulation PostStimulation Anniversary

3-46

Table 9 Pre/Post-Stimulation Deliverability and Pressure Transient Test Results, Stark-Summit Field (Continued) #1885 (TSO #3, September 1997) Test Date Permeability, md Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 Total @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 D (1/Mcfd, x103) Deliverability, MMcfd @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 AOF @ 1,645 psia n (MMcfd/psia2) Jun 97 31.9 -4.3 +4.4 +0.1 0.2 18.9 39.5 .79 Dec 97 12.2 -3.4 +3.2 -0.2 0.7 4.8 9.1 .64 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

3-47

Table 10 Pre/Post-Stimulation Deliverability and Pressure Transient Test Results, EOG 16/30 Proppant Fracs
PreStimulation PostStimulation PostStimulation Anniversary

#1861 (16/30 Proppant Frac #1, September 1997) Chippewa Test Date Permeability, md Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 1,840,352 Total @ Delta P2 = 1,840,352 d (x103) Deliverability, MMcfd @ Delta P2 = 1,840,352 AOF @ 1,645 psia n Oct 96 35.0 -4.9 +4.2 -0.7 0.2 26.0 40.9 0.91 Oct 97 66.7 -0.9 +3.7 +2.9 0.2 18.0 26.4 0.94 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

#1656 (16/30 Proppant Frac #2, September 1997) Stark Summit Test Date Permeability, md Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 Total @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 d (x103) Deliverability, MMcfd @ Delta P2 = 1,036,157 AOF @ 1,645 psia n Jun 97 3.8 n/a n/a -4.7 n/a 13.0 24.2 0.65 Oct 97 3.5 -3.2 +5.0 -1.8 0/2 2.4 4.6 0.67 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

3-50

3.3

Liquid CO2 with Proppant Fracturing 3.3.1 Galbraith Test Site, Pennsylvania

Site Description. The Galbraith field is located in Jefferson County, Pennsylvania (Figure 44). It was discovered in 1917 in the Devonian First Sheffield Sandstone at an average depth of 2,800 feet (Figure 45). Initial reservoir pressure was 910 psig. Net sand thickness within the field varies from 6 to 16 ft (Figure 46). The First Sheffield is characterized as a fine to medium grained sandstone with occasional coarse grained lenses; average porosity is 20 percent. Prior to the start of field testing, permeability estimates ranged from 20 to 30 millidarcies. Originally a gas reservoir, Galbraith was depleted and converted to storage operations in 1937. At the current maximum allowable wellhead pressure of 620 psig, total gas capacity is 1,948 MMcf, with 1,048 MMcf acting as base gas and the remaining 900 MMcf as working gas. The field now has 26 injection/withdrawal wells, 6 observation wells and one indicator well. Due to the age of the wells, drilling, completion and workover information is limited. Based on pressure and rate data collected between 1992 and 1994, the AOF for the field was about 35 MMcfd, but actual peak deliverability from the 26 wells was an estimated 20 to 25 MMcfd. Fracture Technology Selection. Of the five stimulation technologies being investigated by the project, the selected technique for Galbraith was hydraulic fracturing with liquid CO 2 and proppant. The selection was made after observing evidence of tremendous deliverability improvements with three previous water-based fracturing treatments at Galbraith, in 1979 and 1980, but only after long cleanup times (Figure 47). In the case of well #4139 for example, while the fracture treatment appeared to provide an immediate 3-fold improvement in surface-measured AOF, it was still below the original 1938 level. Another measurement about 10 years later indicated the surface AOF had improved to a 12-fold increase, about 30% greater than its orginal 1938 level. A subsequent coiled-tubing cleanout (to remove proppant that had flowed-back) increased that further, to about 4-times better than the 1938 level. Test Well Selection. The three wells selected for liquid carbon dioxide fracturing were wells #2960, #4886 and #4936. They were chosen based on several factors. First, they were listed in National Fuels existing remediation plans. Secondly, no remedial work had been performed on these wells since the 1970s. Third, they each exhibited progressive decline in deliverability of between 4% and 9% per year (Figure 48). Multi-point deliverability and pressure transient analyses were performed on the wells, the results of which are provided in Table 13, indicated both high formation permeability and that the wells were highly damaged. These are ideal conditions for stimulation. Note that these wells were each perforated with six shots/foot in acid prior to testing and stimulation. Figure 49 shows the results of the deliverability tests as compared to single-point deliverabiltiy data collected just prior to reperforating, and suggests that this operation did not significantly impact well deliverability.

DME971M6.WPD

3-65

Figure 44 Location Map of the Galbraith Storage Field, Pennsylvania

DME971M6.WPD

3-66

Figure 45 Structure Contour Map of the First Sheffield Sand at the Galbraith Field

DME971M6.WPD

3-67

Figure 46 Typical Gamma Ray Response in the Galbraith Field

DME971M6.WPD

3-68

Figure 47 Single-Point Deliverability Histories, Gelled-Water Fractured Wells, Galbraith Field

100000

Frac

10000

Recondition Cleanout Recondition

-5.9 %/yr -5.1 %/yr

Recondition Recondition Frac Frac

Coiled Tubing Cleanout

Surfac AOF, Mcfd

1000

Recondition

-0.5 %/yr

Recondition

100

4139 4140 4699

10 Dec-36 Aug-50 May-64 Jan-78 Sep-91 May-05

JAF00444.PPT

DME971M6.WPD

3-69

Figure 48 Single-Point Deliverability Histories, Galbraith Field Test Wells

100000

Original

Cleanout

10000

Surface AOF, Mcfd

Original Recondition

Recondition Cleanout

-4.4 %/yr -5.5 %/yr

Original Recondition Recondition

1000

-8.7 %/yr 100 2960 4886 4936

Recondition Cleanout

10 6/4/16

2/11/30

10/21/43

6/29/57

3/8/71

11/14/84

7/24/98

DME971M6.WPD

3-70

Figure 49 Pre-Stimulation Deliverability Plots, Galbraith Field

1000000

AOF, 675 psia

Delta P^2 (psia^2)

36 # 49 86 # 48
100000

60 # 29

Before Reperf/Acid After Reperf/Acid

10000 0.1 1 Flow Rate (mmcf/day) 10

DME971M6.WPD

3-71

Table 13 Pre-Stimulation Deliverability and Pressure Transient Test Results, Galbraith Field
Well No. Test Date Permeability (md) Skin True Non-Darcy @ DeltaP2 = 183,281 Total @ DeltaP2 = 183,281 D (1/Mcfd, x103) @ DeltaP2 = 183,281 Deliverability (MMcfd) AOF @ 675 psia n (MMcfd/psia 2) Remarks

4886 4936 2960

Aug 95 Aug 95 Aug 95

231 23 521

n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a n/a

+54.8 +30.6 +65.3

n/a n/a n/a

1.1 0.2 2.1

2.3 0.6 5.9

1.00 CO2 Frac #1 0.91 CO2 Frac #2 1.00 CO2 Frac #3

DME971M6.WPD

3-72

Treatment Design and Execution. Based on the available data, a preliminary design for propped liquid CO2 fracturing at Galbraith was prepared. The most critical design considerations were the maximum sand concentration that could be pumped and the amount of pad required to account for high fluid leakoff caused by high formation permeability, and the low viscosity of liquid CO2. Physical limitations such as the maximum possible pump rate and volume of sand contained within the liquid CO 2 blender were also considered in the design. The preliminary design, which called for 26,000 gals of liquid CO 2 and 15,000 lbs of 20/40 Ottawa sand, to be pumped at a maximum sand concentration of 4 ppg and at a rate of 30 bpm, was developed to achieve a 70 foot fracture half-length with a conductivity of 5,000 md-ft. Modelling results indicated a high probability for an early screenout. This was because a) high measured formation permeabilities together with the low-viscosity CO 2 meant that fluid-loss could be a significant problem and b) the high-stress setting, as observed with the earlier gelled-water treatments, could impose rate limitations to exacerbate the problem. Due to the extreme temperature conditions associated with pumping liquid CO2, downhole pressure/temperature instrumentation could not be utilized. The uncertainty with fluid properties (and friction) behavior as it was pumped down the wellbore also meant that bottomhole pressure could not be reliably computed, therefore no downhole pressure estimates could be obtained from the treatment. In addition, phase behavior changes as the liquid CO2 contacts and is warmed by the formation made the utility of mini-fracs or similar pre-frac diagnostics meaningless. Finally, the use of radioactive tracers to estimate fracture height was avoided for safety reasons; the rapid flowback of gaseous CO 2, likely carrying proppant, presented too significant a chance that radioactive materials could be returned to the surface in an uncontrolled manner. Therefore, no fracture diagnostics were performed at this site. On October 6, 1995, the first treatment was performed on well #4886. The sand schedule for the job called for a low initial sand concentration of 0.2 ppg which was to be gradually increased to 4 ppg. However, the initial sand concentration was difficult to control with precision, and a slug of high sand concentration entered the well at the start of the sand schedule. Concentration of the slug was estimated at 3 ppg. Shortly after this sand slug reached the perforations, pump pressure rapidly increased and the job was terminated. An estimated 2,800 lbs of sand was actually placed in the formation, much less than the job design (Figure 50).

DME971M6.WPD

3-73

Figure 50 CO2 Treatment Record, Galbraith #4886

5000 4500

70 60

4000 Pressure, psi (/.75) 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 DME00444.PPT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 Surface Pressure Slurry Rate Density*10 10 30 20 50 40 Rate, BPM Density, ppg*10

Aside from the obvious need for careful monitoring and control of proppant, the events of the stimulations execution made it difficult to determine what, if any, improvements in the treatment design should be made for the next well. It was acknowledged that a possible factor contributing to this outcome may have been formation permeability, which was higher than originally anticipated. Test results showed values of 25 to 500 md; preliminary stimulation designs completed before the pre-frac testing had assumed a permeability of 25 md. The high permeability may have caused a fluid leakoff rate that could not be overcome, as identified earlier as a potential problem. Nevertheless, positive initial response of the well during cleanup, most notably rapid CO 2 cleanup followed by strong observed gas rates, finalized the decision that the stimulation design for application to the second well should not be changed. The second well, #4936, was stimulated on October 13, 1995. Shortly after frac fluid with one pound per gallon sand concentration reached the perforations, pump pressure rapidly increased and the job was terminated (Figure 51). One possible reason for this result is the high pumping pressures required during execution due to a high fracture gradient, causing the pump rate to be less than desired (45 bpm actual vs. 50 bpm target). As a consequence, fracture width may have been too small to accept any significant volume of sand. High pump pressure allowed little opportunity to further increase rate once proppant reached the perforations. Almost as soon as pressure began to increase, the job had to be terminated. It is estimated that 4,500 lbs of sand was actually placed in the formation.

DME971M6.WPD

3-74

Figure 51 CO2 Treatment Record, Galbraith #4936

5000 4500 4000 3500 Pressure, psi 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0
DME00444.PPT

50 45 40 35 30 25 Surface Pressure Slurry Rate Density*10 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time, minutes 6 7 8 9 Rate, BPM Density, ppg*10

Based on the performance of the first two stimulations, the job design for the third well was modified. Pad volume was increased and a higher pump rate of 60 bpm was set as an objective. Smaller proppant was also desired, but unavailable. The use of pre-frac formation breakdown treatments was also considered to lower pumping pressures, but the idea was discarded in order to maintain as non-damaging (i.e., non-aqueous) a stimulation fluid as possible. The third well, #2960, was treated on November 14, 1995. High pump pressure, approximately 4,000 psi due to the high fracture gradient, limited injection rate to a maximum 20 bpm (the previous two jobs were pumped at rates of over 40 bpm). This together with an estimated formation permeability of over 500 md, made formation breakdown problematic (and was not observed, Figure 52). As pumping of the pad volume was completed, an equipment-related and unplanned shutdown of 10 minutes occurred. During this time, wellhead pressure declined to the normal shut-in pressure, suggesting that the pad volume had completely leaked off and any hydraulic fracture that might have existed had closed. Due to the limited remaining volume of liquid CO2 on the job site, sand was added to the injection fluid soon after pumping resumed. However, pressure rose as soon as the sand reached the perforations and the job was terminated. It was estimated that less than 500 lbs of sand was actually placed in the formation. In each case, rapid cleanup of the liquid CO 2 fracturing fluid was observed. Regular gas composition tests indicated that within 3-days, the CO2 level of the produced gas returned to its prestimulation background level (Figure 53). Thus improvements in deliverability achieved with the treatments, as discussed in the next section, were realized almost immediately.
DME971M6.WPD

3-75

Figure 52 CO2 Treatment Record, Galbraith #2960

4500 4000 3500 3000 Pressure, psi

80 70 60 50 Rate, BPM Density, lb/g*10

2500 Surface Pressure 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Time, Minutes Slurry Rate Density*10 30 20 10 0 40

DME00444.PPT

Figure 53 CO2 Content of Flowback Gas, Galbraith Test Site

24% 21% 18% CO2 Content 15% 12% 9% 6% 3% 0% 26 30 34 38 42 46 50 54 58 62 66 70 Flowback Time (hours) Well #4886 Well #2960

300-500 psi FWHP

500-600 psi FWHP

DME971M6.WPD

3-76

Post-Treatment Testing. The post-treatment deliverability and pressure-transient test results for each of the wells are provided in Table 14. In the cases of wells #4886 and #4936, significant reductions in skin factors were achieved as a result of the stimulations leading to folds-of-increase in AOF of six to seven. The negative true skins in wells #4886 and #4936 suggest that hydraulic fractures may have been created in these cases. Well #2960, however, while exhibiting a reduction in total skin factor, also appeared to have a lower permeability and a lower deliverability. Wellbore liquid buildup effects were observed in the post-treatment test, and hence the reduction in relative permeability to gas may be real, although the source of the liquids is unknown. The anniversary test (actually one and a half years after the treatment) however, indicated a return of permeability (to gas) in well #2960 to its pre-frac level, and a corresponding increase in deliverability. In contrast, deliverabilities for the other two wells appear to have already begun declining, perhaps because of the limited proppant volumes that were placed. Nevertheless, the experience from this site suggests that maximum deliverabilities are reached with CO 2 treatments immediately, without a lengthy cleanup period. Remaining Work. All work at the Galbraith Test Site has been completed.

DME971M6.WPD

3-77

Table 14 Pre/Post-Stimulation Deliverability and Pressure Transient Test Results, Galbraith Field
PreStimulation PostStimulation PostStimulation Anniversary

#4886 (Liquid CO2 #1, October 1995) Test Date Permeability, md Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 183,281 Total @ Delta P2 = 183,281 D (1/Mcfd, x103) Deliverability, MMcfd @ Delta P2 = 183,281 AOF @ 675 psia n (MMcfd/psia2) #4936 (Liquid CO2 #2, October 1995) Test Date Permeability, md Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 183,281 Total @ Delta P2 = 183,281 D (1/Mcfd, x103) Deliverability, MMcfd @ Delta P2 =183,281 AOF @ 675 psia n (MMcfd/psia2) Aug 95 23 n/a n/a +30.6 n/a 0.2 0.6 0.91 Dec 95 26 -2.2 +1.4 -0.8 0.9 1.5 3.9 0.87 Jul 97 31 -1.7 +2.4 +0.7 1.4 1.7 3.6 0.83 Aug 95 231 n/a n/a +54.8 n/a 1.1 2.3 1.00 Nov 95 235 n/a n/a +1.5 n/a 6.2 14.6 0.80 Jul 97 189 -0.8 +0.7 -0.1 0.7 5.5 11.5 0.81

DME971M6.WPD

3-78

Table 14 Pre/Post-Stimulation Deliverability and Pressure Transient Test Results, Galbraith Field (Continued) #2960 (Liquid CO2 #3, November 1995) Test Date Permeability, md Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 183,281 Total @ Delta P2 = 183,281 D (1/Mcfd, x103) Deliverability, MMcfd @ Delta P2 = 183,281 AOF @ 675 psia n (MMcfd/psia2) Aug 95 521 n/a n/a +65.3 n/a 2.1 5.9 1.00 Dec 95 220 n/a n/a +37.2 n/a 1.7 3.9 1.00 Jul 97 510 +9.4 +17.5 26.9 3.5 5.0 10.4 0.78

DME971M6.WPD

3-79

3.4

Extreme Overbalance Fracturing 3.4.1 Donegal Test Site, Pennsylvania

Site Description. The Donegal Field is located in western Washington County, Pennsylvania (Figure 54). Discovered in 1907, this depleted gas reservoir was converted to storage operations in 1940. The Gordon Stray sandstone, used as the storage horizon, is a fine- to medium-grained, lenticular sandstone. Depth to the top of the Gordon Stray in the Donegal Field is about 2,600 feet (Figure 55). Streaks of shale and sandy shale are prevalent throughout the Gordon Stray. Total thickness averages 30 feet with a net pay of 8 to 10 feet (Figure 56). Based on core data, permeability in the field is in the 40-70 md range with porosities of 18-26%. Figure 54 Location of the Donegal Gas Storage Field, Pennsylvania

The field has a total of 112 injection/withdrawal wells, and 4 observation wells. At the maximum storage pressure of 1,275 psia, total gas capacity is 9.9 Bcf, 5.1 Bcf of which is working gas and 4.8 Bcf is base gas. Peak deliverability for the field is 231 MMcfd. Stimulation Technology Selection. In 1993, Columbia had examined the use of reperforating as a well enhancement technique for this field11. However, pre- and post-reperforation pressure transient tests suggested limited effectiveness with this approach, as shown in Table 15. In response, Columbia attempted a high sand concentration fracture treatment on well #4019 3-80

DME971N6.WPD

(previously reperforated in 1993) in 1994. High treating pressures were observed for that well which, based on later modeling work performed as part of this project, suggested the potential creation of a horizontal fracture. A post-frac radioactive tracer survey seemed to confirm this interpretation (Figure 57). In addition, as one might expect with a horizontal fracture, the effectiveness of the treatment was limited, and exhibited fluid cleanup behavior over the course of the following year (Table 16). However, Columbia was interested in further evaluation of TSO fracturing as a well enhancement technique at the Donegal field, and as such that was the original stimulation technology selection for the field. As described later, however, TSO fracturing was found to be problematic due to unique rock property and stress conditions at the site, which led to a change in stimulation technology to the EOB method. Figure 55 Structure Map of the Gordon Stray at the Donegal Field

DME971N6.WPD

3-81

Figure 56 Typical Gamma Ray Log, Donegal Field

2700 2720 2740 Depth 2760 2780 Gordon Stray 2800 2820 30
RLF0023.ppt

40

50 API units

60

70

80

DME971N6.WPD

3-82

Table 15 1993 Program Reperforation Results (Donegal Field) Pre-Reperf Well Number 538 3946 3953 3995 4019 4488 4610 Permeability (md) 21.0 37.7 47.3 34.0 27.5 42.7 52.2 Total Skin* -2.7 -1.0 0.0 0.0 +3.9 -1.5 -0.4 AOF**
(MMcfd @ 1275 psia)

Post-Reperf Permeability (md) 22.8 38.3 49.6 36.0 27.5 42.9 40.5 47.2 Total Skin* -2.7 -0.9 -0.1 0.00 +14.4 -1.5 -1.6 -0.7 AOF**
(MMcfd @ 1275 psia)

11.3 13.7 17.1 10.3 6.8 16.5 16.6 14.4

11.7 13.6 17.4 11.4 2.3 16.6 15.8 15.4

4814 49.2 +0.4 * at test flow rate, **n = 1.0, 4 hour flows

DME971N6.WPD

3-83

Figure 57 Post-TSO Radioactive Tracer Survey Results, Donegal #4019

Table 16 Donegal Well 4019 Reperf/TSO Results (Reperf - 1993; TSO Frac - 1994) Permeability (md) Pre-Reperforation Post-Reperforation Post-Tip Screenout (TSO) 27.5 27.5 22.4 Total Skin +3.9* +14.4* +9.3* AOF @ 1,275 psia (MMcfd) 6.8*** 2.3*** 2.4*** 6.5

Post-TSO Anniversary 38.0 +1.5** 2 * @ test flow rate; **@Delta P = 182,275; ***n=1.0, 4 hour flows

DME971N6.WPD

3-84

Test Well Selection. Columbia had overlapping objectives with this R&D project, specifically a well enhancement program at the Donegal field which would draw upon the results of the assigned test wells. Ultimately, six wells were incorporated into the investigation, two of which were recompletions. Pre-stimulation transient test results for the six wells are summarized in Table 17. Treatment Design and Execution. Since Columbia had previously attempted a tipscreenout treatment in the Donegal Field (well #4019) and the detailed modelling analysis of that treatment indicated the possibility that a horizontal fracture had been created, careful analysis of the first well was imperative. A series of fracture diagnostics tests, including a breakdown test, a steprate test, a step-down test, and a mini-frac were performed on well #4003 on June 28, 1996. Analysis of the data collected suggested the creation of a predominantly horizontal fracture, but with a vertical component. A new and novel treatment was therefore designed to create a tip-screenout in the horizontal component, and then diverting proppant-laden slurry into a short vertical fracture prior to complete fracture screenout. The design called for the placement of 37,000 lbs of 20/40 Ottawa Sand with 14,000 gals of 30 lbs/Mgal linear gel at 12 bpm, with a resulting effective fracture length of 120 ft of 550 md-ft conductivity. The main treatment was pumped on July 1, 1996. While the proppant and fluid volumes were essentially pumped according to the design schedule, a screenout was not observed. Therefore it is unlikely that a significant amount of proppant, if any, was placed in the vertical component. Radioactive tracers, entrained in the proppant, indicated that horizontal fracturing may have occurred at both the top and bottom of the storage horizon (Figure 58). Well #12231, also hydraulically fractured with a similar design, showed similar indications of horizontal fracturing based on the poststimulation radioactive tracer log (Figure 59). What is clear is that a vertical fracture does not appear to have been created in either case, questioning whether tip-screenout fracturing can be effectively utilized at this site.

DME971N6.WPD

3-85

Table 17 Pre-Stimulation Deliverability and Pressure Transient Test Results, Donegal Field Well No. Test Date Permeability (md) Skin
True NonDarcy @ DeltaP2 = 182,275 Total @ DeltaP2 = 182,275 D

Deliverability (MMcfd) (1/Mcfd, x103)

@ DeltaP2 = 182,275

Remarks

AOF @ 1275 psia 6.9 6.2 3.6 2.7 5.1 8.8

n (MMcfd/ psia2)

4003 12231 4031 4110 4037 4053

April 96 Oct 94 Aug 95 July 95 Sept 94 April 96

28.4 16.7 30.5 4.7 20.0 47.2

n/a -1.4 +2.6 n/a n/a -0.3

n/a +0.2 +0.4 n/a n/a 0.0

+0.7 -1.2 +3.0 -1.3 -1.4 -0.3

n/a 0.2 0.7 n/a n/a 0.0

0.8 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.0

1.00 0.93 0.90 0.80 0.82 1.00

DOE TSO frac Columbia TSO Frac Recompletion/ EOB Recompletion/ EOB EOB EOB

DME971N6.WPD

3-86

Figure 58 Post-TSO Radioactive Tracer Survey Results, Donegal #4003

DME971N6.WPD

3-87

Figure 59 Post-TSO Radioactive Tracer Survey Results, Donegal #12231

Before proceeding with further TSO treatments at the site, a more thorough understanding of fracture growth behavior at Donegal was sought. Taking advantage of the open-hole opportunity that the recompletion of well #4110 presented, a sonic log was run and six sidewall cores obtained for mechanical properties testing. Understanding that the area seemed to exist under high in-situ stress conditions, the laboratory data was evaluated both at low and high stress ranges and compared to the uncalibrated log-derived rock properties. These results are presented in Figure 60. What is apparent from this data is that, assuming Poissons ratio can be used as a proxy for stress contrast and hence fracture containment potential, induced fractures should preferentially grow within the Gordon Stray and not the bounding shales. However, under high stress conditions where (presumably) there are external tectonic forces on the system, it is noteworthy that the Gordon Stray becomes stiffer (i.e. has a higher Youngs modulus) than the bounding shales based on the laboratory data. Under such conditions, the stiffer material should bear the brunt of the external stresses, not unlike a steel beam within a sandbox in which the sides are being forced inward. Under this scenario, the Gordon Stray would be under a higher stress that the bounding shales and fractures would tend to grow out of, and not into, the Gordon Stray. Further, the high stress levels at this depth would suggest a high likelihood of horizontal fracture creation. This interpretation appears consistent with the observations at Donegal.
DME971N6.WPD

3-88

The question then became given these conditions, what is the appropriate stimulation technology. Since the creation of a vertical fracture across the storage horizon was (presumably) the desired outcome, the application of pulse fracturing was considered. This technology has the potential to create the vertical fracturing sought since fracture initiation is more influenced by wellbore geometry and conditions rather than in-situ stresses (i.e., will create fractures aligned with the wellbore). EOB fracturing was therefore selected for testing at the Donegal Field. Unfortunately, at the outset of this project, little was available in the form of design and analytic tools for EOB treatments. Rather, rules of thumb developed by the service companies that perform these treatments were the primary design tools. Nevertheless, using these approaches a total of four treatments were executed (two as part of the recompletion operations on wells #4031 and #4110, and two as stand-alone stimulation treatments on wells #4037 and #4053). In general, the stimulation treatments were implemented by running a bridge-plug assembly with a rupture disk into the well on wireline to just above the perforations, loading several hundred feet of fluid (acid, treated water) into the well, and then pressurizing the wellbore to about 4,000 psi at the surface, at which time the rupture disk would fail and the liquid slug followed by the nitrogen gas would be forced through the perforations. Continued pumping of nitrogen after the initial surge was performed to enhance the process results. The recompletions involved loading the well with liquid, pressuring the wellbore, and then firing the perforating gun. On two of the treatments (wells #4110 and # 4031), no obvious immediate breakdown was observed, despite reaching peak surface pressures of 3800 psi (about 1.3-1.5 psi/ft). However, continued nitrogen injection in well #4031 suggested that some fracturing had occurred. In well #4053, an apparent initial breakdown was observed at 1.6 psi/ft (4,200 psi at the surface), suggesting that high pressure gradients are required for formation breakdown. Note that the pressure limitations of the casing prevented the use of even higher pressures, and might infer that the use of a high pressure work string for EOB treatments may be appropriate. Well #4037 was ultimately not treated due to a mechanical problem with the rupture disk. Post-treatment logging in well 4031(radioactive tracer was included in the liquid slug) indicated horizontal fracturing (Figure 61), where it has been theorized that a hydraulic fracture was created by the continued pumping of nitrogen after the initial surge. Where the initial breakdown was observed in well #4053, full vertical fracture coverage of the formation seemed to have been achieved (Figure 62).

DME971N6.WPD

3-89

Figure 60 Log vs. Lab Static Mechanical Properties, Donegal #4110

DME971N6.WPD

3-90

Figure 61 Post-EOB Radioactive Tracer Survey Results, Donegal #4031 ( breakdown after continued nitrogen injection)

DME971N6.WPD

3-91

Figure 62 Radioactive Tracer Survey Results, Donegal 4053 (initial breakdown observed)

Prompted by these mixed results, development of a numerical model to simulate the physics of the EOB process began as part of this project. This model is an extension of an existing pulse fracturing model developed for the HEGF process. Evaluation of the Donegal treatments with this new engineering tool implied that the peak pressures achieved were on the borderline of the breakdown pressures required, and that the rate of application of the energy to the formation was an important factor in whether breakdown would be achieved or not (i.e., a rapid application of energy is more likely to induce breakdown, similar to a water-hammer effect). It was also discovered that the fluid column height in the wellbore was of critical importance to the rate of energy application, formation breakdown and the creation of vertical fracturing. Too high a liquid column means less of an energized gas cap to drive the liquid down the wellbore and through the perforations to create fractures, and too small of one leaves too little for fracture creation/extension (the more viscous liquid creates and extends the fractures, the expanding gas merely provides the energy). In the case of the Donegal wells, it was concluded that several hundred feet of liquid above the perforations was too great for effective fracture creation and extension. Post-Treatment Testing. Multi-point deliverability and pressure transient testing was performed on all the test wells, with results presented in Table 18. Almost without exception, posttreatment deliverabilities were less than before the pre-treatment values, suggesting that some damage had been done. It is believed, similar to the TSO-treatments, that the damage is related to the introduction of fluids in each case, and will clean-up with time. It is interesting to note however
DME971N6.WPD

3-92

that the volumes of liquid involved at Donegal were much smaller than for the TSO-treatments, and may provide some insight as to just how sensitive some storage formations may be to the introduction of liquids. Table 18 Pre/Post-Stimulation Deliverability and Pressure Transient Test Results, Donegal Field
PreStimulation PostStimulation PostStimulation Anniversary

#12231 (Columbia TSO, June 96) Test Date Permeability, md Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 182,275 Total @ Delta P2 =182,275 D (1/Mcfd, x103) Deliverability, MMcfd @ Delta P2 =182,275 AOF @ 1,275 psia n (MMcfd/psia2) #4003 (DOE TSO, July 1996) Test Date Permeability, md Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 182,275 Total @ Delta P2 =182,275 D (1/Mcfd, x103) Deliverability, MMcfd @ Delta P2 =182,275 AOF @ 1,275 psia n (MMcfd/psia2) April 96 28.4 n/a n/a +0.7 n/a 0.8 6.9 1.0 August 96 21.0 n/a n/a +12.0 n/a 0.8 2.1 1.0 September 97 24.0 +0.3 +0.2 +0.5 0.3 0.7 5.5 0.96 October 94 16.7 -1.4 +0.2 -1.2 0.2 0.9 6.2 0.93 August 96 40.0 -2.1 +1.2 -0.9 0.8 1.5 8.2 0.75 September 97 62.4 +3.8 +0.3 +4.1 0.2 1.4 11.8 1.00

DME971N6.WPD

3-93

Table 18 Pre/Post-Stimulation Deliverability and Pressure Transient Test Results, Donegal Field (Continued)
PreStimulation PostStimulation PostStimulation Anniversary

#4110 (Recompletion/EOB, no breakdown, September 96) Test Date Permeability, md Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 182,275 Total @ Delta P2 =182,275 D (1/Mcfd, x103) Deliverability, MMcfd @ Delta P2 =182,275 AOF @ 1,275 psia n (MMcfd/psia2) July 95 4.7 n/a n/a -1.3 n/a 0.5 2.7 0.80 October 96 5.9 +2.2 +0.1 +2.2 0.2 0.6 2.1 1.00 September 97 7.0 -0.6 0.0 -0.6 0 0.5 4.0 1.00

#4031 (Recompletion/EOB, breakdown achieved after continued N 2 pumping, October 96) Test Date Permeability, md Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 182,275 Total @ Delta P2 =182,275 D (1/Mcfd, x103) Deliverability, MMcfd @ Delta P2 =182,275 AOF @ 1,275 psia n (MMcfd/psia2) August 95 30.5 +2.6 +0.4 +3.0 0.7 0.5 3.6 0.90 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a September 97 28.8 -1.2 +1.1 -0.1 1.5 0.7 4.7 0.88

DME971N6.WPD

3-94

Table 18 Pre/Post-Stimulation Deliverability and Pressure Transient Test Results, Donegal Field (Continued)
PreStimulation PostStimulation PostStimulation Anniversary

#4037 (EOB, no breakdown, August 96) Test Date Permeability, md Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 182,275 Total @ Delta P2 =182,275 D (1/Mcfd, x103) Deliverability, MMcfd @ Delta P2 =182,275 AOF @ 1,275 psia n (MMcfd/psia2) #4053 (EOB, initial breakdown achieved, August 96) Test Date Permeability, md Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 182,275 Total @ Delta P2 = 182,275 D (1/Mcfd, x103) Deliverability, MMcfd @ Delta P2 = 182,275 AOF @ 1,275 psia n (MMcfd/psia2) April 96 47.2 -0.3 0.00 -0.3 0 1.0 8.8 1.00 September 96 42.0 n/a n/a +3.0 n/a 0.7 4.8 1.00 September 97 44.0 -0.7 +0.4 -0.3 n/a 0.8 6.9 0.99 September 94 20.0 n/a n/a -1.4 n/a 0.9 5.1 0.82 September 96 17.5 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 0.2 0.5 3.6 0.93 September 97 16.6 -1.7 +0.1 -1.7 0.1 0.7 5.3 0.95

Remaining Work. All activities at the Donegal Field have been completed.

DME971N6.WPD

3-95

3.4.2 Oakford Test Site, Pennsylvania Site Description. The Oakford Storage Field extends over 13,400 acres in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, Figure 63. The field was discovered prior to 1900. Originally a gas field, a total of 365 wells have been drilled on a total leased acreage of 30,950 acres. Preparation for conversion of the Oakford field to a storage facility began in 1949. Partial service began in 1950 and full operations commenced in 1956. Currently, there are 302 wells at the facility, with 269 wells actively used for injection/withdrawal. The remaining wells are used for observation and salt water disposal. The Oakford complex is comprised of two reservoirs, the Murrysville Sand and the Fifth Sand. The Murrysville is used as a system base load withdrawal reservoir. The sand is at an average depth of 1,400 feet and has 18% porosity. Core analysis suggests localized permeability as high as 9 darcies. Although the discovery pressure was 725 psig, the current operating pressure is 400 to 500 psig. The Murrysville currently has a storage capacity of 101 Bcf. The Murrysville was originally thought to consist of North and South pools, and the original plan was to develop only the North pool. However, it soon became apparent that gas in the North pool migrated to the South and both parts of the reservoir have been developed. The Fifth Sand reservoir provides peaking deliverability for the Oakford storage service area, and is the zone of interest for this DOE project. The average depth is 2,250 feet with 9% porosity and permeability up to 1 darcy (Figures 64 and 65). Net sand thickness for the field ranges from less than 10 ft to over 40 ft. The maximum allowed wellhead shut-in pressure is 1,100 psig. Prior to 1962, several of the Fifth Sand wells were hydraulically fractured. The details of how these treatments were performed is unknown and knowledge of the effects of this work is fragmentary. However, based on the history of single point injection tests for these wells, results appear to have been somewhat successful. Limited information suggests an average 2.5 fold-of-increase attributable to fracturing, although the time required to clean up these wells is unknown. More recent remediation work has involved the use of a coiled tubing cleanout followed by washing or jetting of the completion interval with hydrochloric acid. The wells are then flowed back for cleanup or unloaded with nitrogen, if necessary. Several wells were cleaned out with this procedure in 1994. Results using this technique are reported to be unremarkable by CNG however. Current remediation work has also involved the use of a coiled tubing cleanout but then followed by washing or jetting of the completion interval with 500 to 1,000 gallons of aromatic solvent. The wells are then flowed back for cleanup or unloaded with nitrogen, if necessary. Several wells were cleaned out with this procedure in 1996. Results to date using this technique have been encouraging in wells with open hole completions, but appear to have had little effect on cased hole wells; the majority of wells in the field are open-hole completions.

DME971N6.WPD

3-96

Figure 63 Location of the Oakford Gas Storage Field, Pennsylvania

DME971N6.WPD

3-97

Figure 64 Fifth Sand Isopach Map, Oakford Field

DME971N6.WPD

3-98

Figure 65 Typical Gamma Ray Response, Oakford Fifth Sand

DME971N6.WPD

3-99

Fracture Technology Selection. The moderate to high permeability of the Fifth Sand reservoir limited the applicability of liquid CO 2 fracturing. Tip-screenout fracturing could be appropriate for the Fifth Sand, particularly since earlier hydraulic fracturing had some success in improving deliverability. The operators favorable recent experience with hydraulic fracturing in other fields was also a positive factor in this regard12. However, the operator also showed an interest in extreme overbalance fracturing, hence extreme overbalance fracturing was selected for the Fifth Sand Reservoir. Test Well Selection. For the Fifth Sand, all of the injection/withdrawal wells were considered for stimulation treatment. However, mechanical condition was an important consideration for potential candidate selection. Wells with questionable casing or wellhead integrity were removed from further consideration. It was desirable that the experience gained from this project be used to develop a procedure that would be applicable to as many Fifth Sand wells as possible. Therefore, while the first stimulation would be performed on a well considered to have minimal mechanical risk, designs for subsequent stimulations would consider wells with more typical mechanical conditions. Most Fifth Sand wells are completed open-hole where the production casing may be set up to 30 feet above the top of the sand. This raised the question whether an EOB frac could be effectively directed into the Fifth Sand, or if the stimulation would uselessly expend itself in the weaker, overlying formation. Because of this, it was desired that the first candidate well have a cased hole completion. After that initial experience, EOB design for open hole completions would be pursued, although an initial preference was for wells with a minimal amount of exposed formation between the casing shoe and the Fifth Sand. Once mechanical concerns had been addressed, the list of potential candidate wells was narrowed based on production potential and productivity decline. Noteworthy declines were identified for wells JW55, JW-103 and JW-237, which were selected for EOB treatments, and well JW-17, selected as the control well to be stimulated using coiled tubing cleanout and formation washing with xylene. Single-point deliverability histories for the test and control wells, shown in Figure 66, indicate annual deliverability decline rates for these wells ranging from 0% to 3.3% since the 1960's.

DME971N6.WPD

3-100

Figure 66 Single-Point Deliverabiity Histories for the Test and Control Wells, Oakford Test Site

15

12

Deliverability, MMscf/day

9 Decline of 2.8%/yr Decline of 0%/yr

Decline of 3.3%/yr 6

3 Decline of 1.8%/yr

Year JW-17 AOF JW-55 AOF JW-103 AOF JW-237 AOF

JAF00498.PPT

DME971N6.WPD

3-101

JAF98020.XLS

0 1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Pre-stimulation multi-point injectivity and pressure transient testing was performed on the three test wells as wells as the selected control well, with the results presented in Table 19. The wells all appear to exhibit extremely high formation permeabilities with significant levels of damage, and hence are ideal candidates for stimulation.

ME971N6.WPD

3-102

Table 19 Pre-Stimulation Injectivity and Pressure Transient Test Results, Oakford Field Well No. Test Date Permeability (md) Skin
True NonDarcy @ DeltaP2 = 210,692 Total @ DeltaP2 = 210,692

Deliverability (MMcfd) D (x103)

@ DeltaP2 = 210,692

Remarks

AOF @ 1,270 psia

JW-237 JW-103 JW-55 JW-17

Aug 96 Aug 96 June 96 July 96

720 296 465 320

+26.1 +11.3 +26.0 +23.9

+8.4 +16.7 +19.4 +34.7

+34.5 +28.0 +45.4 +58.6

0.9 3.4 5.6 9.9

9.4 4.9 6.0 3.5

46.8 19.2 22.9 12.2

0.85 0.65 0.67 0.75

EOB Frac #1 EOB Frac #2 EOB Frac #3 Control Well, coiled tubing cleanout plus xylene wash

ME971N6.WPD

3-103

Treatment Design and Execution. Building upon the lessons learned from the Donegal site with respect to understanding the EOB process and some of the factors that appear critical such treatment, and taking advantage of the evolving EOB stimulation model, the Oakford EOB treatments were designed. Several aspects of the design are particularly noteworthy. First, it was obvious from Donegal that pressure limitations imposed by the ratings of the casing, wellhead, etc. could severely compromise the effectiveness of the EOB treatments. As such, it was decided that a high-pressure work string be utilized to convey the treatment. It should be noted that the smaller tubing does present a disadvantage over a full casing diameter due to the smaller fluid and gas volumes that can be employed. Second, in addition to the EOB treatment itself, reperforating was incorporated into the stimulation scheme. The resulting downhole configuration, illustrated in Figure 67, was designed such that an increase in pressure to 3,000 psi (downhole) would burst the first valve, exposing pressure to the casing and perforator. A further increase in pressure to 4,800 psi would fire the perforator and initiate the treatment. Note that the configuration had to be run into the hole in two stages due to its length and limitations on the lubricator height at the surface. However, it did permit the utility of some casing volume for the storage of the treatment liquids (in this case gelled water tagged with scandium tracer). Finally, in an effort to further enhance an understanding of the EOB process, high-pressure, high-speed downhole gauges were run to record the downhole pressures on a millisecond scale for later analysis and modeling. The first treatment, performed on well #237, occurred on September 3, 1997. Having run the downhole assembly the previous day, by the time of the treatment the wellbore below the packer had filled with gas, displacing the liquid into the formation. In the gas environment, when the perforator fired it expanded significantly, choking the fluid being expelled from the work string. This prevented formation breakdown and fracture creation, as illustrated by the downhole pressure records (Figure 68). The slow rate of pressure increase is evidence of a restricted flow path, and no evidence of breakdown is observed, despite a maximum pressure gradient of 1.5 psi/ft being achieved (3,600 psi). Note that the first 1.3 seconds of data collected was invalid. Since the treatment did not result in formation breakdown and fracturing, a post-stimulation tracer log was not run.

ME971N6.WPD

3-104

Figure 67 Downhole Configuration for Oakford EOB Treatments

High Pressure Nitrogen in Tubing

Inflatable Packer

3,000 psi Burst Valve

Gelled Water Tagged With Scandium Tracer

Inflatable Packer

4,800 psi Burst Valve Spacer Pipe

Perforating Gun

Fifth Sand

High Speed Pressure Recorder

JAF00508.PPT

ME971N6.WPD

3-105

Figure 68 Downhole Pressure Record of EOB Treatment, Oakford #237

6,000

Bottomhole Pressure, psi

4,000

2,000

0 0
ME971N6.WPD

1
3-106

The next treatment, performed on well #103, was executed on September 5. In this case the assembly was run and the treatment performed on the same day to avoid a re-occurrence of the previous treatment mishap. Here a peak bottomhole pressure of 4,200 psi (1.8 psi/ft) was achieved (Figure 69) and fracturing was accomplished. The final modelled geometry (using the new EOB simulation model) was a bi-winged fracture, with each wing predicted to be about 15 ft long. Due to lengthy post-treatment assembly-retrieval operations, a post-treatment radioactive tracer survey was not run. Stimulation of the final well, #JW-55, is being considered for the Fall of 1998. The control well, JW-17, was worked over in August 1996 using a xylene wash applied with coiled tubing.

DME971N6.WPD

3-107

Figure 69 Downhole Pressure Record of EOB Treatment, Oakford #103

6,000

Bottomhole Pressure, psi

4,000

2,000

0
ME971N6.WPD

3-108

Post-Treatment Testing. Post-treatment injectivity and pressure transient tests were performed on wells #237 and #103, the results of which are shown in Table 20. In both cases there appears to be a reduction in gas permeability and an increase in skin, which is again characteristic of fluid damage from a stimulation treatment. Remaining Work. The remaining program at Oakford includes performing the final EOB treatment on well #JW-55, performing post-treatment testing on wells #JW-17 and JW-55, and performing the annual testing.

ME971N6.WPD

3-109

Table 20 Pre/Post-Stimulation Injectvity and Pressure Transient Test Results, Oakford Field PreStimulation #237 (EOB #1, September 1997) Test Date Permeability, md Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 210,692 Total @ Delta P2 =210,692 D (1/Mcfd, x103) Deliverability, MMcfd @ Delta P2 =210,692 AOF @ 1,270 psia n (MMcfd/psia2) #103 (EOB #2, September 1997) Test Date Permeability, md Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 210,692 Total @ Delta P2 =210,692 D (1/Mcfd, x103) Deliverability, MMcfd @ Delta P2 = 210,692 AOF @ 1,270 psia n (MMcfd/psia2) August 96 296 +11.3 +16.7 +28.0 3.4 4.9 19.2 0.65 October 97 288 +14.4 +27.6 +42.0 6.9 4.0 21.2 0.82 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a August 96 720 +26.1 +8.4 +34.5 0.9 9.4 46.8 0.85 October 97 595 +31.8 +10.0 +41.9 1.6 6.3 41.1 0.93 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a PostStimulation PostStimulation Anniversary

ME971N6.WPD

3-110

Table 20 Pre/Post-Stimulation Deliverability and Pressure Transient Test Results, Oakford Field (Continued) PreStimulation PostStimulation PostStimulation Anniversary

#JW-17 (control well, coiled tubing cleanout with xylene wash, August 1996 ) Test Date Permeability, md Skin True Non-Darcy @ Delta P2 = 210,692 Total @ Delta P2 =210,692 D (1/Mcfd, x103) Deliverability, MMcfd @ Delta P2 =210,692 AOF @ 1,270 psia n (MMcfd/psia2) July 96 320 +23.9 +34.7 +58.6 9.9 3.5 12.2 0.75 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ME971N6.WPD

3-111