SPE-176828-MS

Delaware Basin Bone Springs. A Study of the Evolving Completion

Practices to Create an Economically Successful Play
Lyle V. Lehman, and Randy Andress, StrataGen, Inc.; Mike Mullen, Stimulation Petrophysics, LLC.;
Ray Johnson, Jr., Unconventional Reservoir Solutions.

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition held in Brisbane, Australia, 9 –11 November
2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The Bone Springs play of South East New Mexico USA is currently in full development. The play
contains three pay sections, with all, two or sometimes just one pay section providing economic
hydrocarbons for Operators to develop and exploit. This paper will discuss the evolution of how the play
was developed by abandoning vertical wellbores, and then using horizontal wells with multi-stage fracture
treatments. The paper will focus on how each hurdle was overcome to discover economically beneficial
technology including: lateral azimuth; lateral length; frac fluid and proppant selection; fracture design and
evaluation as well as production results for each hurdle.
Further discussions will emphasize the selection of lateral landing depth and the impact of depth
on propping each fracture, the evolution from perf-and-plug to selective isolation with usage of
sliding sleeve technology as well as the final state-of-the art on well design for the play. All of these
facets are proven to demonstrate an improved production and cash flow to generate an optimized well
plan.
Key learnings will be in the area of logic, the workflow to determine key anchor points from data and
understanding trade-offs for less expensive yet not as rewarding technologies and practices.

Introduction
The Delaware Basin
The focus of this study is the Bone Springs which is part of the Delaware Basin, which is located to the
west of the Central Basin Platform (CBP)1. It was a structural and topographic low, providing an inlet for
marine waters during the majority of the Permian period. The basin has an asymmetrical geometry, and
its axis is adjacent and largely parallel to the faulted margins of the CBP2. The Delaware Basin is
structurally deeper in comparison to the Midland Basin3.
Along the border between the Delaware Basin and the CBP there is local reverse faulting and
graben development, and minor anticlinal features can be found along the northern slope, in New
Mexico. Small scale normal faulting can be found on the western flank of the basin. It is suggested
that any major deformation within the basin had ceased by the Wolfcampian-early Leonardian times4.
2 SPE-176828-MS

As a result of the Laramide transgression during the Late Cretaceous-early Tertiary, an east-
southeastern regional tilt was imposed which flattens out in the basin center (eastern Lea and Winkler
Counties).

Figure 1—Map of the Permian Basin Provinces of West Texas, USA. Inset map shows the location of the Permian basin in the USA (map
modified from Dutton et al, 2000)

The Bone Springs group underlies the middle aged Permian and overlays the older Permian age
strata. The Bone Spring formation is Leonardian in age (figure 2) and can be broken down into three
packages; 1st, 2nd and 3rd Bone Spring. Each package contains carbonate followed by a thinner sand
unit. This cyclical sedimentation is due to changes in sea level that created the juxtaposition of
different depositional environments. The carbonate formed when the sea level was at a high, and the
sandstones when the sea level was at a low. At the top of the Bone Springs formation is the Avalon
Shales and carbonates5.
SPE-176828-MS 3

Figure 2—Geographic Column of the Delaware Basin

Historically, the Bone Springs was penetrated by drilling to deeper horizons. Due probably to very low
permeability and/or the then current knowledge of petrophysics, the Bone Springs was not considered to
be a viable target and seldom was forecasted as an asset unless completed. Completions were a result of
missing or finding deeper targets (Morrow Sandstone and the Ellenburger Dolomite zones) to be wet. In
any case, a suitable logging suite generated enough data to allow for a simple propped frac treatment
design. Typical results were a yield of 8 to 25 BOPD but with very shallow production declines.
4 SPE-176828-MS

All three sands are relatively thick at an average thickness ranging from 230 to 310 ft. As a ⬙back-out
zone⬙, the third Bone Springs was the usual completion target. The third (from figure 2) lays on top of the
Wolfcamp and has a broader geographic footprint than the second or first Bone Springs. The frac
treatments were usually in the order of 20,000 lbm using natural 20/40 sand from Brady Texas as the
proppant. More modern analysis has opened the path to understanding that the second Bone Springs is as
good a target as and potentially better than the third. Unfortunately, in our practice we have not
participated to date in any first (upper) Bone Springs projects and as we understand it, the first Bone
Springs seldom develops porosity and permeability.
Approximately in late 2008, the benefits of horizontal drilling and multi-stage fracing were widely
accepted in low permeability pay zones. However the mindset was that ⬙a great horizontal well had to first
be a good vertical well⬙ was still in vogue. By the early 2011 timeframe, operators were willing to risk
placing a horizontal wellbore in a low permeability payzone and completing the same. One example of
success is the Avalon Shale, which is above the Bone Springs group. When this theory was applied to the
Bone Springs, success was quickly seen and several drilling campaigns began.
Further investigation revealed that unlike other shale plays (Barnett, Haynesville, Utica, etc.) the
reservoir pressure gradient in the Bone Springs is normal to very slightly elevated, ranging from 0.443 to
0.455 psig/ft. Observed permeability from production history matching ranges from a high of 0.25 in the
second Bone Springs to a low of 0.0044 Millidarcies in the third Bone Springs. All production is primarily
oil with a gas-to-oil ratio range of ~1980 scf/STB.

Figure 3—Schematic cross-section of the Upper Permian Stratigraphy of North West Shelf of the Delaware Basin (SEPM Strata, 2013)

First Hurdle: Lateral Length and Azimuth

Regional geomechanic studies indicate that the main horizontal stress runs relatively east-west ⫹/- 8
degrees. There are exceptions to this which are controlled by local geologic structures. Our objective was
to create a platform for placing several hydraulic fractures to seek the best possible production, knowing
that the permeability is low for either Bone Springs pay zone.
From Shelley’s work in figure 4, it is apparent that a horizontal wellbore drilled into the minimum
stress (north-south) must be used so that a high degree of contact (frac stages – perforation clusters) can
be employed to produce the reservoir at an economic level.
SPE-176828-MS 5

Figure 4 —Well Planning Guide by Shelley6et al

Fracture spacing is going through an evolution at the time of this writing but began with a value equal
to one cluster per three casing joints – about every 120 feet. We are currently employing a modified design
which will be the subject of a future SPE paper.

Second Hurdle: Frac Design – The Fluid

As is typically the case and probably supported by old petrophysics beliefs and the success of the Avalon Shale
projects, many operators considered the Bone Springs to be a ⬙shale⬙ and as such thought of it as a probable
highly brittle and relatively isotropic stress regime. So completion engineers chose to apply a fracture
network-like frac treatment. However, Microseismic mapping illustrated that in most cases, fracture geometry
is planar. Geomechanic studies revealed that the threshold pressure to dilate any natural fractures is ⬎10%
above closure gradient, thus making creation of a natural fracture network difficult at best to achieve.
Due to the fracture geometry being planar and the frac height being greater than 200 ft., we chose to use a
crosslinked gel to perform most of the proppant placement7. The issue of having a fluid that would also be a
source of damage was a concern. After a lot of debate we determined that using a very low-loading of base gel
to be the best option. Our starting point was 16 lbm/1000 gallon guar based borate crosslinked gel which had
a yield at 100 sec-1 shear of ~840 cps. Our designs used linear gel in the early stages and excess breakers were
used throughout along with a nano-surfactant package to enhance load recovery8.

Third Hurdle: Proppant Selection

Due to the relatively high closure pressure gradients which range from 0.745 psig/ft. in the second Bone
Springs to 0.794 psig/ft. in the third Bone Springs. With a typical total vertical depth of 10,652 ft. for the
second and 11,006 ft. for the Third, the closure pressures yield 7935 and 8738 psig respectfully. A second
data point used for proppant selection was that with a combination of the gas-to-oil ratio and high initial
flow rates (note: many wells completed by area operators had very high initial potentials) we feared the
presence of multi-phase flow compounded by non-Darcy flow issues.
6 SPE-176828-MS

One could argue that with a high producing pressure, the net load on the proppant was well within
natural frac sand’s operating range. However our contention was that the added impacts of: multi-stage
frac treatment; probable frequent shut-ins during production due to poor regional gas gathering as well as
the multi-phase high flow rates required the use of ceramics.
Therefore high conductivity9 was a must and ceramic proppant was chosen from the onset. This choice
was further supported by Penny’s work in SPE 154308 where he cited the synergy between ceramics and
the nano-surfactant.
Fourth Hurdle: Lateral Setting Depth
As previously mentioned, the Bone Springs was drilled and logged using the current state-of-the art
logging tools of the time. The benefit of having quality logs and several deep wells in the area is that this
allows the geologist to map along the lateral well path to determine if the sand bodies are thinning or
thickening as well as understanding potential trends in the hard lime streaks which are located above and
below and sometimes inside the Bone Springs.
Figure 5 is a type log of a third Bone Springs well. The figure caption outlines depths and lithology
throughout the vertical column. This case is fairly simplified because there are only two lime streaks in
the vicinity of the probable fracture geometry and they are at the upper and lower limits. In many cases,
a lime streak appears between the upper portion of the third Bone Springs sand and the Red Hills member.
In either case, the lime streaks act as fracture bounding devices as a function of distance and permeability
between the lateral setting depth and the lime streak.

Figure 5—Type Log of a third Bone Springs vertical section of the West Copperline 29 State well, courtesy of Caza Petroleum. A hard
lime streak is located from 11,995 to 11,242’. The Upper section of the third Bone Springs runs from 11,220 to 11,365’. The ⴖRed Hillsⴖ
member (main body) of the third Bone Springs runs from 11,366 to 11,485’. There is a hard lime streak below that and then the Wolfcamp
top is at 11,520’ on this type log. These elements are discussed in the following chapter
SPE-176828-MS 7

Selecting a Target Depth – an Overview

There are several factors that affected our decision for selecting a target depth setting for the lateral
including the:
● total frac height;
● far to medium high stress barriers;
● permeability between the landing depth and the high stress barrier;
● proppant transport capability of the carrier fluid;
● frac fluid leak-off characteristics (which must be coupled with the next issue);
● proppant density, shape and sphericity; and
● changes in pay quality from the vertical aspect (i.e. top to bottom change in perm).
Total Fracture Height From the example in figure 5, we can assume that the total frac height will be
confined in between the two hard lime streaks which is roughly 243 feet of pay. We can also assume that
these boundaries will not be breached unless we either place the lateral extremely close to the hard streak
and/or pump a very thick low-leakoff frac fluid. Since we are pumping a ‘medium-thin’ fluid the potential
for breaching the hard lime streaks is controlled by proximity to the streak.
Academically, the use of frac fluids requires using a fluid with excellent proppant transport, such as a
crosslinked fluid, when the frac height goes above 50 feet10. The added observation that the fracture
geometry is planar11 also determines that a crosslinked fluid is best.
Far to Medium Stress Barriers Not illustrated in figure 5 but sometimes observed by the geologist
when sub-surface mapping the pay sand along the lateral, we have to deal with the issue of in-pay hard
streaks. As eluded to before, these usually occur in the third Bone Springs between the Red Hills and the
upper sand body. Fortunately they seldom occur for a majority of the lateral, but when they do occur we
consider placing the lateral above the streak so that we can better force frac fluid through it and into the
Red Hills. We also consider the hard layer as a modest boundary which allows deflecting proppant
upwards to cover more of the Bone Springs upper sand body, but our pressure data neither supports nor
defeats these findings.
Permeability between the landing depth and the high stress barrier As many know when designing
frac treatments in vertical wells, out-of-perforated-field permeability is often an excellent barrier for frac
height growth. This remains the same case in a horizontal well, the only issue appears to be the ability to
map and evaluate it. In either case, the more footage of permeability the better the barrier mechanism, and
in the case of figure 5, the higher success that the frac will not grow up into the second Bone Springs or
down into the Wolfcamp. This issue also requires design adjustments for proppant schedules and pad
volumes.
Proppant transport capability of the carrier fluid As discussed in the section on total fracture height,
the proppant-carrying capacity of the fluid deserves a lot of consideration. Imagine that the wellbore is
landed in figure 5 at 12,365 feet, where the red line is drawn on the log. If the frac fluid is a linear gel
or especially if it is water with friction reducer, the design engineer should not assume that proppant will
be lifted into the upper Bone Springs sand as there is not enough viscosity in the frac fluid to allow
‘lifting’. Therefore it is easier to assume (or agree as the case may be) with the theory that it is easier to
prop down rather than to prop up especially when thin fluids are used.
Conversely, placement of the lateral at a shallower depth and use of a thick(er) fluid can jeopardize the
breaching of the upper hard streak.
Frac fluid leak-off characteristics Combining the need for propped height (lifting proppant) and tem-
pering with the desire to create as little amount of gel damage as possible virtually ⬙tuned⬙ our choice for
8 SPE-176828-MS

frac fluid. We knew that the leak-off properties would not be as optimal as thicker fluids but the theme
of yielding little damage dictated our choice. This issue is best combined with the next issue.
Proppant density, shape and sphericity Proppant selection has an impact on determining a horizontal
well landing depth as the issue of propping pay zone above the lateral is controlled by the proppant and
frac fluid properties as well as frac velocity (injection rate). Proppant transport is usually characterized by
stating a Navier-Strokes equation relating to settling rates. There are several forms but equation 1 is more
simplified.
(1)

Where: Vs is settling velocity; ␳prop is proppant density, ␳fluid is fluid density, Vprop is proppant
volume; Cd is the drag coefficient; and Ap is the area of the proppant.
Cd and Ap are key elements to this relationship as they characterize drag of spherical versus
non-spherical proppants. Rods settle faster in fluid as same-density spheres, which lead us to choose
spherical ceramic proppants over competitive ceramic rods as the main proppant.
Sphericity was also considered to account for the high potential flow rates and for frac fluid clean-up12.
We chose to have a proppant with the lowest beta factor to accommodate drag from Forchheimer forces.
(2)

Where: is the change in pressure along a slot; ␮ is viscosity of the fluid and V velocity; k is the
permeability of the media which the fluid is flowing through; ␤ is the non-Darcy drag coefficient
discussed previously as ⬙beta⬙; ␳ is the density of the fluid flowing and velocity is now squared. An
argument can be made which supports the idea that low permeability oil-bearing reservoirs will not
produce ⬙enough⬙ oil at a rate to support the use of man-made proppants, even at stress, the design team
felt that sufficient reasons supported their use.

Therefore the influence of lateral depth selection as impacted by proppant selection became a matter of picking
a depth that could best utilize the ceramic proppant and its properties plus the medium-thin frac fluid to our
advantage. In cliché style: ⴖIt’s easier to prop down and use gravity than prop up and fight itⴖ. Changes in pay quality
from the vertical aspect (i.e. top to bottom change in perm)

Lateral placement in a vertical column where the higher reservoir quality is in the upper portion of the
pay can confuse the issue of selecting a setting depth. In figure 5, the better reservoir rock is the Red Hills
section which is below the lateral setting depth. However other sub-surface mapping and pilot hole drilling
⫹ log analysis has provided evidence that upper sands in the third Bone Springs (as well as the second)
can have better reservoir quality. In general, the selection depth that we chose is roughly 10% above the
base of the better pay section. In figure 5, assuming that the upper was better than the Red Hills section,
that depth would be 11320 feet. We chose this depth since we wanted to prop the bottom section but did
not have much out-of-field-permeability to act as a frac barrier.

Putting It All Together and Simulating Results to Determine Lateral Depth Setting
Shifting to the second Bone Springs, using the Endurance Resources Telecaster Federal 30 4H well as an
example. Using the frac fluid, proppant and utilizing offset vertical well data and subsurface mapping, a
landing study was simulated using a three dimensional (3D) frac model13. The goal was to understand the
net pressure behavior and proppant distribution in the vertical column. This was done by simulating four
(4) separate landing depths in the frac model, as noted as boldened text in Table 1.
SPE-176828-MS 9

Table 1—Mechanical Earth Model for the Telecaster Federal 30 4H second Bone Springs
Closure Gradient Toughness Composite Layering
TVD (ft.) Lithology (psig/ft.) (psig) Effect (ht/len) Permeability to Frac Fluid (Mds)

0 Shale 0.78 2,000.00 35 0.00E⫹00

10,380.00 Shale 0.78 2,000.00 35 0.00E⫹00
10,390.00 Shaley BS 0.758 1,200.00 5 3.50E-01
10,408.00 Bone Springs 0.734 800 1 7.00E-01
10,433.00 Shale 0.78 2,000.00 18 0.00E⫹00
10,435.00 Limestone 0.775 1,400.00 22 0.00E⫹00
10,461.00 Shale 0.78 1,500.00 18 0.00E⫹00
10,464.00 Shaley BS 0.757 1,200.00 18 3.50E-01
10,471.00 Bone Springs 0.734 800 1 7.00E-01
10,490.00 Shale 0.78 2,000.00 35 0.00E⫹00
10,494.00 Bone Springs 0.751 1,000.00 1 5.00E-01
10,530.00 Shaley BS 0.758 1,200.00 5 2.50E-01
10,553.00 Bone Springs 0.752 1,000.00 1 5.00E-01
10,580.00 Shale 0.78 2,000.00 35 0.00E⫹00
10,583.00 Bone Springs 0.751 1,000.00 1 5.00E-01
10,643.00 Shale 0.78 2,000.00 35 0.00E⫹00

Our data sources were from pilot wells for the specific case and frac net pressure matching several
offset horizontal wells. We had also performed production history matches periodically to improve our
effective fracture geometries, thus establishing a calibrated frac model.
These depths were also selected based on ability to guide the drill bit in proximity of the layer as well
as the depth representing a pay section. All four simulations used the same frac design, injection rate and
proppant ramp schedule, thus the only variable being the source of the frac entering the pay section.

Setting Depth Workflow

We will now illustrate the impact of setting depth on proppant placement using a workflow
incorporating the 3D frac model and testing each of the four potential landing depths independently.
Whilst the modelling cannot fully represent the complexity of widths and offsets that can ultimately
affect proppant placement, using geomechanical data gathered from field offsets can will give us
confidence that the overall physics of proppant placement governed by equations 1 and 2 will be
adequately considered.
For example, Figure 6 illustrates the treatment of the shallowest depth interval and yielded the lowest
Fcd value (note that the permeability to frac fluid in this layer was assumed to be 0.5 MDs from the
petrophysical model) and did not adequately place proppant in the lower portion of the second Bone
Springs. The model reflected a high net pressure increase during the treatment which alerted us to the
potential of a ⬙pressure out⬙ during the treatment. Apparently the source behind the excessive net pressure
was a result of ‘lifting’ the proppant above the lateral early, due to a high level of out-of-field permeability
below the simulated lateral. In contrast, Figure 7 illustrates the second depth setting and showed
improvement on deeper coverage but did not yield as high an Fcd as we intended–the proppant placement
map was not as desirable.
10 SPE-176828-MS

Figure 6 —10,480 feet landing depth simulation

Figure 7—10,520 feet landing depth simulation

Figure 8 illustrates the third setting depth which yielded better proppant placement than either the first
or second scenarios; ultimately, this setting was chosen as the target depth for the well when drilled. (Note:
Red Line in figure is misrepresented).
SPE-176828-MS 11

Figure 8 —10,553 feet landing depth simulation

Finally, Figure 9 illustrates the deepest setting depth that was rejected due to the observation of high
net pressures during simulations. Similarly to the first setting depth, this was attributed to the pressure
effects of ‘lifting’ the proppant, causing excess net pressure, which may jeopardize fracing down into the
third Bone Springs and potentially risk a screenout. (Note: Red Line in figure is misrepresented). Table
2 notes the results of the four simulations

Figure 9 —10,590 setting depth

12 SPE-176828-MS

Table 2—Results of the four placement simulations

Setting Depth (TVD feet) Frac Length (feet) Propped Length (feet) Frac Height (feet) Propped Height (feet) Fcd

10480 592.5 545.3 286.5 263.6 2.461

10520 576.3 529.5 272.2 250.2 2.476
10553 568.6 520.0 276.7 253.2 2.526
10590 555.2 502.6 305.6 276.9 2.563

Our key reasons for selecting the third depth setting were:
● Proppant map showing coverage of higher proppant concentrations in all three pay sections,
● Low to modest net pressure trend during the treatments which improves the ability to repeat each
stage along the lateral.
This workflow highlights the benefit gained from gathering geomechanical data from surrounding
wells and incorporating them in a pre-drilling design modelling strategy to establish optimal target zones
for the lateral.
Fifth Hurdle – Treatment Optimization by Transitioning from ⴖPlug and
Perfⴖ to Isolated Sleeve Technology
The final hurdle was optimizing the operational aspects which is ongoing since the project began in
mid-2013. Along the way, as we were gaining insight and knowledge about our processes, we
performed net pressure matching on every frac stage. This process allowed us to modify fracture
spacing (generally place perforation clusters closer – but more on that in upcoming SPE paper),
monitor back-stress and develop a permeability model from mud logging data and calibrated from net
pressure matching on stages utilizing step-rate testing.
One artifact of deriving accurate estimates of bottomhole treating pressure in order to perform
effective net pressure history matching was deriving perforation efficiency. A quick definition of
perforation efficiency is the number of perforations open versus reported. We seldom observed 100%
efficiency.

Table 3—Survey of 7 example wells to illustrate perforation efficiency as diagnosed from net pressure matching and step-rate tests
Well Perforations Reported (all stages) Efficiency (%)

E-S-1 658 38
E-T-3 611 41
E-T-4 658 34
E-N-3 658 32
C-G-S 704 43
C-C-3 658 41
C-C-4 611 48

The wells were perforated in limited entry style by using three (3) evenly spaced clusters with 20
perforations at the furthest (toe) measured depth, 15 in the middle depth and 12 at the shallowest (heel)
depth. Microseismic mapping was not employed here but net pressure matching, especially when step-rate
tests were employed, indicated the perforation efficiency issue.
Our concern was that when the perforation cluster efficiency was lower than 74%, we may be
eliminating entire clusters, limiting the stimulation treatment to only two (2) or even one (1) of the
three (3) intended fractures being targeted. To reduce this potential effect, we used a multi-sleeve frac
SPE-176828-MS 13

system in the completion process14. Multistage sleeves allow the completion process to individually
open each sleeve port and perform a frac treatment. This process is exactly similar to using one
perforation cluster per stage, but requires much less time and expense as coil tubing is utilized in the
process. The process starts at the toe and moves towards the heel as in regular plug-and-perf or
ball-drop stim-sleeve procedures.
The workflow is fairly straight-forward:
1. Locate sleeve using coil tubing
2. Open port
3. Set packer, isolating previous stages
4. Frac via coil tubing-casing annulus
5. Unset packer and proceed to next port/sleeve.
As a result of this optimization, production results from the treatments improved. We now
conclude that whole clusters were being lost in the previous processes, reducing productivity. We had
to update our reservoir quality model (RQ) using mud logging gas chromatograph data because our
old RQ model was being out performed by newer wells with lower RQ, based on the previous model.
In spite of the fact that the number of stages generally grew three (3) fold, use of this system actually
decreased completion costs as less water, less time and no plug drill-out is required to start
production.
Results
Table 4 is a listing of several wells in the case study with their relative milestone events and results of best
60-day production as a comparative production indicator.

Table 4 —Summary of case study wells with milestone events and comparative production
Well Name Bone Springs Interval Start Date Milestone Event Best 60 Day Oil (bbl) Best 60 Day Gas (MMcf)

C-G-27 3rd 5/27/14 Proppant and Fluid 24,878 31.381

C-WC-29 3rd 7/7/14 Lateral Setting Depth 43,871 69.764
C-R-14 3rd 12/23/14 Multistage Port 33,242 30.332
E-J-17 2nd 7/21/14 Proppant and Fluid 32,433 12.987
E-B-29 2nd 9/22/14 Lateral Setting Depth and Multistage Port 51,107 49.796
E-N-19 2nd 12/9/14 Multistage Port 83,737 136.144

Note: The data in the Results table are not benchmarked for reservoir quality. An example being that
the ⬙C-R-14⬙ demonstrated much lower % values of C4H10 and C5H12 to total gas versus the ⬙C-WC-29⬙
well. In general for the area of study, the third Bone Springs has ~1/2 or less the permeability than the
second Bone Springs sand. All lateral perforation (cluster) lengths and design frac stages are essentially
the same between these 6 examples.
Conclusions and Observations
Following are conclusions and Observations that we gained from this experience.
1. Selecting a frac fluid based on potential frac height, proppant transportation requirements and
breaking ability is required to optimize conductivity placement.
2. Lateral setting depth is as much a part of the frac design as fluid and proppant selection and
all three must be factored to achieve an optimized plan. Gathering geomechanical data from
surrounding wells and incorporating them in a pre-drilling, modelling workflow using a 3D
14 SPE-176828-MS

frac simulator is essential in establishing optimal target zones for the lateral and stimulation
treatments.
3. Understanding the changes in reservoir quality along the lateral in both the vertical and the
horizontal aspects are key elements in drilling and completion design and essential in overall well
spacing optimisation.
4. Using a multi-stage port completion system improves production as the completion efficiency is
increased to almost 100%; this improves production results and provides better calibration of the
reservoir quality model.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Caza Petroleum and Endurance Resources for the use of their case studies.
We also wish to thank Carbo Ceramics for allowing use to present this work.

References
1. Montgomery, S. L., J. Worrall, and D. Hamilton, 1999, Delaware Mountain Group, West Texas
and South eastern New Mexico, A Case of Refound Opportunity: Part 1 - Brushy Canyon, AAPG
Bulletin, vol. 83, no. 12, p. 1901–1926
2. Dutton, S.P. et al, 2000, Expansion of gas reservoir data base, Permian Basin, Texas. West Texas
Geological Society, Vol. 00-109
3. Yang, K. M. and S. L. Dorobek, 1995, The Permian basin of west Texas and New Mexico:
tectonic history of a ⬙composite⬙ foreland basin and its effects of stratigraphic development, in
Dorobek, S. L. and G. M. Ross, eds., Stratigraphic evolution of foreland basins, SEPM, p.
149 –174
4. Ball, M. 1995, Permian Basin Province (044), in Gautier, D.L. et al, 1995, National Assessment
of the United States oil and gas Resources – Results, Methodology and Supporting Data: US
Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-30, USGS.
5. Sutton, L., 2014, Permian Basin Geology: The Midland Basin vs. the Delaware Basin Series,
http://info.drillinginfo.com/midland-basin-vs-delaware-basin/ Accessed 06/10, 2015.
6. Shelley, R. et al, 2010 ⬙Quantifying the Effects of Well Type and Hydraulic Fracture Selection on
Recovery for Various Reservoir Parameters Using a Numerical Reservoir Simulator⬙, paper SPE
133985 presented at the SPE Annual Technology Conference and Exhibition, 19 – 22 September,
Florence, Italy.
7. Jackson, K., Palisch, T. and Lehman, L. 2014, ⬙Completion Optimization with Ceramics Provides
Step Changes in Horizontal Performance for the 2nd Bone Springs Formation – A Southeastern
New Mexico History⬙, paper SPE 170720 presented at the SPE Annual Technology Conference
and Exhibition, 27 – 29 October, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
8. Penny, G.S. et al, 2012 ⬙Nano Surfactant System Improves Post Frac Oil and Gas Recovery in
Hydrocarbon Rich Gas Reservoirs⬙ paper SPE 154308 presented at the SPE Improved Oil
Recovery Symposium 14 – 18 April, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
9. Lehman, Lyle, et al 1999 ⬙Proppant Conductivity – What Counts and Why⬙ paper SPE 52219
presented at the SPE Mid-Continent Operations Symposium 28 – 31 March, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma USA.
10. The Western Company Hydraulic Fracturing Manual, Technical Development Program, 1976.
11. Lehman, Lyle, et al 2013 ⬙Net Pressure Trends: Is it Permeability, Complexity or just Fluid
Response? A Workflow to Determine Stimulation Effectiveness in Naturally Fractured and
Matrix-Based Permeability Reservoirs⬙ paper SPE 163858 presented at the SPE Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology Conference 4 - 6 February, The Woodlands, Texas USA.
SPE-176828-MS 15

12. Solomon, M.Y. and Hunt, J.L. 1985 ⬙Effects of Fracturing Fluid and its Cleanup on Well
Performance⬙ paper SPE 14514 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, 6 – 8 November,
Morgantown, WV USA.
13. Hansen, J.F. and Perry, K.F. 1994 ⬙Research and Development Wells for Technology transfer⬙
paper SPE 27935 presented at the SPE Mid-Continent Gas Symposium, 22 – 24 May, Amarillo,
Texas, USA.
14. Schmelzl, E. et al 2014 ⬙CTU Deployed Frac Sleeves Benchmark Horizontal Multi Stage Frac
Isolation Performance⬙, paper SPE 169574 presented at the SPE Western North American and
Rocky Mountain Joint Meeting, 17 – 18 April, Denver, Colorado.