URTeC: 1922407

Horizontal Shale Gas Well Fracing Unplugged!

Peter Chernik; Doug Bearinger; David Meeks; James Pyecroft; Jurgen
Lehmann*, Nexen Energy ULC
Copyright 2014, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) DOI 10.15530/urtec-2014-1922407
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 25-27 August 2014.
The URTeC Technical Program Committee accepted this presentation on the basis of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). The contents
of this paper have not been reviewed by URTeC and URTeC does not warrant the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any info rmation herein. All information is the
responsibility of, and, is subject to corrections by the author(s). Any person or entity that relies on any information obtained from this paper does so at thei r own risk.
The information herein does not necessarily reflect any position of URTeC. Any reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of URTeC is prohibited.

Summary
The current fracing industry paradigm is to isolate stimulation intervals. Cased cemented horizontal well
stimulations follow a rigidly prescribed format. The casing is perforated, a hydraulic fracture treatment is
pumped, and isolation is set above the previously stimulated interval before the casing is perforated for
the next interval. These steps are repeated as necessary to stimulate the entire lateral section. Isolation is
held as a fundamental requirement of completions under the belief that a lack of isolation between intervals
will result in the loss of stimulation fluid through previously perforated intervals.
This paper illustrates a brief history of field tests which resulted in a paradigm shift towards non-isolated
intervals. Events are discussed which led to the discovery that slick water fracs can be executed in the
Horn River Basin with no isolation between frac stages (Nexen Energy ULC patent pending plugless
fracing process). Multi-stage plugless horizontal completions are examined on a number of horizontal well
pads. Experimental results cover 80+ plugless intervals on multiple pad developments over a period
ranging from 2008 to 2014. Included is an example of a complete 25 interval horizontal wellbore with no
isolation between any frac stages. The benefits of the plugless stimulation method are many fold, including
reduced operational risk during pumpdown operations; no plugs to get stuck or set in the wrong place; no
plugs to drill out and no plug debris on flowback, eliminating costly and time consuming operations;
making longer horizontal sections possible as length is not limited by the capability to drill out plugs; and
faster cycle times.
Well information and surveillance data will be described for the plugless fracs deployed to date. The data
illustrates successful application of the technology in Nexens Horn River shale development. Surveillance
and production data is considered in order to present possible explanations on the mechanics behind the
success of this technique.
Introduction
A Nexen Horn River well consists of a mono-bore cased cemented design, where 139.7 mm casing is used
as the production casing. The total lengths of these wells have increased from less than 3200mMD to
greater than 5300mMD as the program has progressed. Laterals target three main geological horizons:
Muskwa, Otter Park and Evie.
The most common method for stimulating wells in the Horn River Basin is multi-stage hydraulic fracturing
using slick water and proppant with isolation known as the plug and perforate method. Intervals are
opened by first pumping a bridge plug and perforating gun to depth. Upon reaching the desired depth the
bridge plug is set, a quick pressure test is performed to verify the bridge plug is in place, the guns are

URTeC: 1922407

positioned and the interval(s) are perforated. Guns and setting tool are then recovered; the frac is pumped
and upon conclusion, the process is repeated for subsequent intervals until all planned intervals are
complete. The next steps in the program are: drill out the plugs, clean out the well, flow back the well and
turn the well over to the production department.
This paper will be limited to a select group of horizontal wells in the Horn River Basin in which hydraulic
fracture stimulations were placed in adjacent intervals within the same wellbore with no isolation being in
place between frac stages (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Plugless completion vs. conventional plug and perf design

If proven across an entire wellbore lateral, multiple benefits arise from a plugless completion strategy:
1. Reduction of time on the lease and acceleration of production on times
Conventional completions require post stimulation mill out of all isolation plugs. 40% of Nexen
completions time is spent on plug removal operations. Removing plugs also eliminates risks
associated with the flow back of plug debris.
2. Streamlined completions
No plugs to get stuck and therefore less need for interventions during the frac phase of the program.
3. Increased lateral lengths
Longer horizontal wells can be completed because there is no restriction of maximum depth for coil
tubing mill outs which typically reach a friction threshold.
4. Greater lateral access relative to current interventionless plug technology
The open wellbore would enable production logging operations as well as other well intervention
operations (e.g. scale removal)
Plugless completions possess major potential for improvements at a pad level in terms of safety and
environmental impact, as well as reduced cost savings and improved completion efficiencies.

URTeC: 1922407

Experimental Design Cycle Overview

An overview of the design team philosophy is a useful aid when navigating the series of experiments
summarized in the plugless design cycle below. The Nexen design team evaluates production using pad
level performance metrics. Given the high degree of interactions across the stimulation network (Merkle et
al, 2013), multi-well pad performance is believed to be most representative of potential improvements.
Numerous wells need to be drilled to test new technology and processes at this level. Field experiments
progress through different maturity levels while evolving into pad level tests. Successful experiments are
progressed up the ladder in terms of scale and risk.
Interval Level Test (low risk)
Experiments performed across a fraction of the lateral section
Not ideal, typically do ability or proof of concept tests for potential pad level experiments
Often require production logging to obtain interval level production results
Lateral sections can demonstrate large degree of variability from interval to interval
Results gained from interval level tests are not necessarily applicable to an entire wellbore
Wellbore Level Test (medium risk)
Experiments performed using the entire lateral section
Typically a 2nd stage experiment, growing out of successful do ability tests. Again, not ideal
Large production variability can occur across wellbores with identical completions on a pad
Wellbores interact, fracing creates a fluid / stimulation network connected across wells (one well
may suffer / one benefit from these interconnections)
Results gained from well level tests need to consider interactions with offsetting wellbores, results are often
ambiguous
Pad Level Test (high risk)
Experiments performed across multiple wellbores
Typically the 3rd stage of an experiment, growing out of a wellbore test
Ideal, gives the best possible look at productivity gains from experimental designs applied to a
development
Nexen does not risk production at a pad scale on immature experiments; tests develop over long term
experimental design cycles.
Plugless Completion Experimental Design Cycle
Adhering to the philosophy described above, the plugless completion design cycle progresses from do
ability and interval level tests, through to wellbore tests, and finally into development of pad level designs.
Experimental cycles are formation dependent due to differences between geological horizons. As a result
we see streams within the design cycles which separately evaluate upper and lower formations (Figure 2).

URTeC: 1922407

Figure 2: Experimental design cycle, plugless completion

2008: C-93-A Pad

Muskwa formation Screen Out Test (c-93-A single interval)
The concept of plugless completions began with an off depth perforating event in the Muskwa formation in
December 2008. The unplanned perforations were caused by undetected thermal expansion of fluid in the
coil tubing while pushing the assembly to depth. The resulting perforation event occurred approximately
1080 m above the planned interval but within the shale zone. After considering a number of options the
following plan was implemented:
A plug was set below the unplanned perforations and above previous planned perforations near the toe
of the well.
A screenout frac was executed and the unplanned perforations were successfully sanded off using
sand slugs carried in a combination of slick-water, linear gel and cross-linked fluids.
The well was cleaned out and work was suspended. The well was then abrasive jet perforated near the
toe of the well (below the unplanned perforation event) and the well was cleaned out.
A frac was successfully pumped with design volumes of fluid and proppant.
o Micro-seismic monitoring recorded that the bulk of the events were associated with the new
perforations with some events associated with the previous unplanned perforations.
A plug was set to isolate completed frac and the process was repeated.
A second frac was successfully pumped with design volumes of fluid and proppant.
o Micro-seismic monitoring again recorded that the bulk of the events were associated with the
new perforations with some events associated with the previous unplanned perforations.
2009: A-16-I Pad
Evie formation Extemporaneous Plugless Do Ability Test (a-C16-I single interval)
The next plugless test occurred approximately 4 months later on well a-C16-I. Upon completing the first
interval, three attempts were made to set a composite bridge plug as per plan with two of the attempts
ending in costly milling operations. The decision was then made to perforate and inject the full stimulation
volume without setting isolation from the preceding perforations.
The goal was to observe the impacts of a lack of isolation between intervals on fluid placement downhole.
After the screen out observation on c-93-A there was significant speculation that the non-isolated frac
would stimulate the target reservoir around the new perforations. In a worst case scenario debris would be
cleared even if the second stimulation was lost into previous perforations. The second of eight planned

URTeC: 1922407

intervals then pumped successfully without the benefit of a bridge plug isolation from the toe interval, with
full design volumes placed.
Post treatment analysis, utilizing microseismic and pumping data, suggested that the majority of the
injection fluid stimulated the 2nd target interval as intended. A small degree of stimulation loss to interval 1
was observed.
2011: C-1-J South Pad
Muskwa / Otter Park formation Planned Plugless Do Ability Test (c-c1-J and c-E1-J multiple intervals)
The 2nd plugless trial was performed to ensure repeatability of prior impromptu stage level tests. For 2011,
plugless sections were designed across two wellbores. Each of these plugless sections included 3 intervals.
The 1st interval was a conventional completion, isolated from all prior perforations. The 2 nd interval was
plugless, in that there was no isolation between it and the perforations in interval 1. The 3 rd interval was
also plugless, with no isolation between it and the previous perforation in intervals 1 and 2. Microseismic
monitoring (MS), radioactive sand tracing (RA) and production logging tests (PLT) were utilized to
determine the efficacy of these plugless stages.
MS event distributions indicated regions opposite all three plugless section intervals were adequately
stimulated (Figure 3). Event distributions and densities observed across the plugless sections were similar
between the true plugless intervals (intervals 2 and 3) and the conventionally completed interval (interval
1).

Figure 3: Microseismic event distributions across plugless sections, colored by interval

The RA tracer program was utilized to identify isolation (screen out) from previous perforations (Figure 4).
The first conventional stimulation interval was pumped without RA. RA injected during the stimulation of
interval 2 was detected in interval 1. Tracer injected during the stimulation of interval 3 was detected in
interval 2 but not in interval 1. Results were consistent across plugless intervals in both wellbores, with
screen out appearing to occur following a single successive injection. This was identified as a potentially
important cause of effective isolation between injection intervals, though other potential diversion
mechanisms are discussed below. The RA log indicated effective stimulation across the plugless sections.
That is, all tested perforations accepted RA tracer and delayed isolation was observed.

URTeC: 1922407

Figure 4: Radioactive Proppant Surveillance

A PLT was run on a single experimental wellbore. Production contributions were logged across each
interval within the plugless section, intervals 12 to 14. Interval 12 significantly outperformed the wellbore
average, possibly due in part to stimulation overflow from an underperforming interval 13. Interval 14
produced in line with average interval contributions for the wellbore. A large variability in productivity was
observed across the plugless section, with total production contributions across the combined plugless
section exceeding the wellbore average which consisted of conventionally completed intervals (Figure 5).

Figure 5: PLT Results c-E1-J

URTeC: 1922407

The 2011 experiments replicated initial test results across 3-interval plugless sections in the upper
formations (Muskwa / Otter Park). These provided confidence to progress to wellbore level tests in the
upper formations and to proceed with interval levels test in the lower formations (Evie and Otter Park B)
2012: B-77-H Pad
Muskwa formation Reduced Plug Test (b-O77-H full wellbore)
Evie formation Plugless Do Ability Test (b-A77-H and b-I77-H multiple intervals)
The 3rd plugless design iterations increased both scale and risk by testing an entire wellbore, while still
retaining some conventional plugs. This reduced plug wellbore was completed with multiple 2 and 3
interval plugless sections, separated by conventional plugs
The entirety of the reduced plug lateral was an experiment. Therefore a lesser degree of surveillance was
required, with normalized total well production results being the key success metric. Initial results were
discouraging; the wellbore had bottom tier production performance relative to expectations. However,
interference mapping performed across the pad clearly demonstrated strong pressure interactions between
the reduced plug wellbore and an offsetting wellbore. The productivity of the offsetting wellbore appeared
to benefit from these interactions and was top tier relative to expectations. The implication was that the
underperformance of the plugless wellbore was not solely a result of poor stimulation effectiveness. A PLT
was run to determine production performance across the plugless intervals (Figure 6). Production logged
intervals without isolation from previous perforations showed significant inflow, often exceeding average
interval contributions. Indications of strong connectivity between wellbores were also observed. The full
wellbore plugless completion test was evaluated to have achieved the desired experimental result despite
falling short of productivity expectations.

Figure 6: PLT results b-077-H (Reduced plug test)

Plugless section tests in the lower (Evie) formations were also successful, achieving similar results to
previous interval level experimentation in the upper formations. For these tests, success was determined
from analysis of pumping data (injectivity) and PLT results (both lower formation wellbores were logged).
2013: D-37-H Pad
Muskwa formation Full Plugless Test (d-037-H full wellbore)
Muskwa / Otter Park / Evie formations Plugless Toe Tests (All wells multiple intervals)

URTeC: 1922407

The 4th plugless design iterations included an entire wellbore completed with no isolation along the lateral.
No isolation was a significant increase in risk relative to the 2012 reduced plug wellbore level test, which
did not meet production expectations. Confidence gained from prior learnings and understanding of interwell interactions at a pad level is what enabled further testing. Again it was determined that a lesser degree
of surveillance was required. Normalized production results would be the key success metric. Additionally,
micro seismic surveillance was implemented and the stimulation network established around the cased
plugless wellbore was observed. These observations were contrasted against peer wells completed in the
same formation. Peer wells included a conventional plug and perf completion as well as a cased
uncemented experimental wellbore (Pyecroft et al, 2014). All wells shown were completed under similar
geological conditions.
Initial production results were encouraging; the plugless wellbore has top tier performance and is producing
well relative to expectations (Figure 7 and Figure 8).

URTeC: 1922407

Figure 7: Plugless well, D37-H South peer group production comparison

Figure 8: D-37-H Plugless well, Horn River basin production comparison

Microseismic distributions again indicated regions opposite all plugless intervals were adequately
stimulated (Figure 9). Event distributions and densities observed across the plugless wellbore were similar
to the conventional plug and perf wellbore as well as the experimental cased uncemented wellbore.

URTeC: 1922407

10

Figure 9: Microseismic distributions, upper formation wellbores, D-37-H South

Also tested in 2013 were plugless intervals in the toe sections of all wells and formations. Plugless toe
sections varied from 3 to 5 intervals by design, with a single experimental cased uncemented wellbore
receiving ten plugless intervals due to operational challenges (Pyecroft et al, 2014). Production results
across the pad, normalized to lateral length, exceeded expectations. The plugless toe intervals are inferred
to be producing in line with conventionally completed intervals.
A PLT is planned in 2014 to determine the variability of production contributions across the plugless
wellbore.
2014: C-1-J North Pad
Otter Park / Evie formations Full Plugless Tests (multiple full wellbores)
The 5th generation plugless tests will be conducted in 2015 with multiple wellbores in multiple formations
being completed without isolation between intervals.
Potential Diversion Mechanisms
The time between adjacent stage treatments in a well is typically between 12 to 36 hours in recent Horn
River completions. During this time the local stress field surrounding the previously stimulated fracture
networks changes and fracture fluid leaks off into connected fractures. Imbibition of fracture fluid into the
surrounding rock matrix can change the geomechanical properties of the previously stimulated reservoir.
The laboratory work of Makhanov (2013) has shown that the Horn River shale reservoirs imbibe significant
amounts of water upon exposure.
In previously created hydraulic fractures there has been time for fracture fluid to penetrate further into the
rock and ahead of the fracture tip. In his PhD dissertation, Kovalyshen (2010) recognises that fluid
invasion of the rock matrix surrounding a fracture induces a backstress that increases the normal stress that
is acting to close the fracture. This increased normal stress favours the propagation of hydraulic fractures
at new entry points along a horizontal wellbore.
Detournay (2004) recognized two end members for fluid driven fracturing, viscosity dominated and
toughness dominated. Building on this work, Kovalyshen (2010) states that energy dissipation in hydraulic
fracturing can often be characterized as viscous dominated whereas in water flooding it is toughness
dominated. The difference between these two propagation regimes is the degree of water penetration into
the rock matrix. In hydraulic fracturing, water invasion lags behind the fracture tip. In water flood
fracturing, water invasion precedes the fracturing. Plugless fracture stages will propagate new fractures in
the same regime as isolated hydraulic fractures while the previously created fractures will become
toughness dominated because of fluid invasion beyond the fracture tip and deeper into the fracture walls.
Osmotic invasion of fresh fluid into clay-bearing rocks was studied by Rozhko (2012). Although he did
not consider the effect of capillary forces, both can play a role in spontaneous imbibition of water into the

URTeC: 1922407

11

rock matrix. Rozhko concluded that the flow of water from a fracture into the surrounding rock matrix
increased the apparent tensile strength of the rock thus increasing the fracture toughness.
Another factor that could assist with diversion is the increase in net pressure that is experienced as fractures
grow in length (Nolte and Smith, 1981). By itself this is likely insufficient to explain the success of
plugless fracturing as initial treating pressures are high in the Horn River shale until an efficient fracture
pathway is established from the well into the dominant hydraulic fractures.
The role of proppant was evaluated in the initial tests with radioactive tagged proppant. It showed that sand
with the best blocking characteristics (50/140) did not prevent 40/70 sand from reaching some of the
previous stage perforations. This finding agrees with the increased injectivity of plugless stages that
indicate some fluid is lost to previously stimulated intervals. The fluid entering previous fractures is likely
refilling fracture storage and replacing leak-off to the surrounding natural fractures and rock matrix. rather
than extending the stimulated fracture network.
In the Horn River shales the testing of plugless fracturing has shown that diversion occurs without stage
isolation and yields production similar to wells with stage isolation. The mechanisms are not fully
understood yet there are published mechanisms that suggest that changes in the rock and stresses around
previous stimulations could be responsible for favouring the growth of new fractures from new access
points into the reservoir.
Conclusions and Discussion
Reduced isolation was initially explored in response to unforeseen operational challenges. Success in these
initial explorations led to evaluation of the benefits from reduced isolation on a broader scale. The potential
to improve performance was the catalyst for development of multiple plugless tests in the Dilly Creek
Etsho area. Successful tests at the interval level evolved into wellbore level tests. Results from an initial
wellbore level test of reduced plug isolation between intervals were discouraging. Results were reevaluated in light of new insights gained around inter-well connections which occur at a pad scale. The
decision was made to evolve the test further despite increased risk. Follow up wellbore level testing of the
full plugless wellbore exhibits encouraging early time results. Production from the first full plugless
wellbore is in line with expectations and performance is strong relative to competitors in the basin.
Significant risks to wellbore performance were taken and multiple challenges met in order to arrive at
successful wellbore level plugless results. Field trials described in this paper clearly illustrate an ability to
successfully place fracs in the Horn River basin without isolation between intervals (Nexen Energy ULC
patent pending plugless fracing). This development could represent a paradigm shift which carries
multiple benefits and can result in significant cost savings.
Nexen is willing to work with other operators to test the plugless fracing concept in the Horn River and
other basins.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the technical subsurface and drilling and completions teams involved in the
NE BC shale gas project for contributions which made this paper possible.
References
Detournay, E. 2004. Propagation regimes of fluid-driven fractures in impermeable rocks. Int. J.
Geomechanics, 4(1) 1-11
Kovalyshen, Y. 2010. Fluid-Driven Fracture in Poroelastic Medium, PhD Thesis, University of Minnesota.

URTeC: 1922407

12

Makhanov, K., Dehghanpour, H., and Kuru, E. 2013. Measuring Liquid Uptake of Organic shales: A
Workflow to Estimate Water Loss During Shut-in Periods. In SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources
Conference.
Merkle, S., Lehmann, J., & Pyecroft, J. (2013, August 12). Field Trial of a Cased Uncemented MultiFractured Horizontal Well in the Horn River. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.1190/URTEC2013138
Pyecroft, J., Merkle, S., & Lehmann, J. (2014, August 27). Second Generation Testing of Cased
Uncemented Mulit-Fractured Horizontal Well Technology in the Horn River. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. URTEC 2014
Nolte, K.G. and Smith, M.G. 1981. Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures. J Pet Technol 33 (9): 1767
1775. SPE-8297-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/8297-PA
Rozhko, A.2012. Effect of osmotic force on apparent fracture toughness, In 46 th Us Rock Mechanics/
Geomechanics Symposium held in Chicago, IL, USA