SPE 119620

Operators Evaluate Various Stimulation Methods for Multizone Stimulation

of Horizontals in Northeast British Columbia
Dave Thompson, SPE, EnCana, and Keith Rispler, SPE, Shawn Stadnyk, SPE, Ottmar Hoch, SPE, and
B.W. McDaniel, SPE, Halliburton

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 19–21 January 2009.

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
Effective reservoir exploitation in tight-gas wells can be achieved by fracture-stimulating horizontal wells. A primary key to
economic success when fracture stimulating horizontal wells is achieving the placement of propped fractures uniformly along
the entire lateral section. This well completion strategy is becoming a more common method and is currently being used to
effectively develop tight-gas reservoirs in northeast British Columbia, Canada.
This paper reviews different well completion and stimulation methods currently being applied in horizontal well
stimulation in Northeast British Columbia, Canada. Specifically, the paper reviews horizontal well stimulation of the
Montney formation that extends from northwestern Alberta into Northeastern British Columbia. Well construction and well
completion strategy should be based on reservoir understanding and optimum stimulation design.
This paper discusses a number of options for well construction and stimulation methods, including: packer isolation and frac
sleeves, pump down bridge plugs and perforating guns, coiled tubing deployed bridge plugs and tubing conveyed perforating,
and hydrajet perforating on CT with sand plug isolation. Evaluation and comparison of these different techniques include
well construction, well completion including post-stimulation cleanouts, and post stimulation production analysis, including
consideration of logistics, method reliability, and comparison of results.

Introduction
Exploitation of tight-gas reservoirs with fracture-stimulated horizontal wells is becoming a more common well completion
strategy. Recent technology development has produced a number of horizontal well completion techniques that enable
operators to more successfully complete horizontal wells. The rapid increase of horizontal wells used to develop tight-gas
reservoirs demonstrates that the required economics are achievable. A simple approach to economics is production value
versus well construction/completion costs. Although horizontal well construction costs are higher than for vertical wells, the
ability to divide these costs on a per frac basis in most cases is making horizontal wells a preferred exploitation strategy in
single-horizon well completions.
When selecting a completion technique, the operator should consider both the cost of the associated well
construction/completion costs and potential production benefits. In addition, the risks of exceeding anticipated costs or
reducing production using various completion techniques should also be considered.
In addition to anticipated well construction and completion costs, the cost of interruption from unscheduled events in the
completion process is an important consideration. This can include: cost of delays from equipment failure, packer mis-runs,
inability to get packer strings to bottom, premature set of bridge plugs, frac breakdown issues, time to set competent sand
plugs, and screenout cleanout time.
One should consider the effects on production with the number of intervals, failure of isolation, near-wellbore
conductivity, over-flushing, and effects of extended completion times on fluid recovery.
The operator is developing wells in the Montney formation in the NE British Columbia area in the region indicated on
Fig. 1. The operator has completed over 75 horizontal wells that have between six to nine fractured intervals per well. One of
the operator’s objectives has been to develop repeatable completion operations. The operator has been able to demonstrate
the improvement in economics both in a shift to horizontal well exploitation and improvements in application of horizontal
well stimulation technology (Fig. 2).
2 SPE 119620

Fig. 1—Montney play location.

Fig. 2—Total cost per completed interval.

Background
The operator developed this field with three vertical wells drilled in 1997, seven vertical wells in 2004, 12 horizontal wells in
2006, 37 horizontal wells in 2007, and anticipates completing 50 horizontal wells in 2008. The operator is drilling two to four
horizontal wells per section into the Upper Montney and two horizontal wells per section into the Lower Montney (Fig. 3).
Intervals were isolated during stimulation and initial flow back in the first horizontal wells to optimize frac design and
establish production benchmarks.
The Lower Triassic Montney formation in the Peace River Arch area forms a sedimentary wedge up to 350 meters thick,
deposited on the cratonic margin. The Montney is underlain unconformably by either Permian or Carboniferous strata and
overlain by the Middle Triassic Doig formation. The Montney formation has been internally subdivided into a lower, middle,
and upper unit, separated from each other by transgressive surfaces. The Upper Montney has been further subdivided into the
four units: “A”, “B”, “C,” and “D.” Each unit is separated by a maximum flooding surface.
The lower and middle Montney geometry demonstrates a basinward thinning and downlapping of stratigraphic units.
Turbidite deposits commonly occur locally, and as such, this lower package is characteristic of a low-stand deposit. The
Upper Montney displays a basinward thickening with a defined shelf break. Stratigraphic units commonly onlap the shelf
break and numerous maximum flooding surfaces can be traced regionally throughout the area. The sedimentary environment
SPE 119620 3

of the Upper Montney is interpreted as lower shore face to upper shelf slope. The finely interbedded, argillaceous siltstone
and silty shale display the characteristics of tempestites, deposited in a storm-dominated environment.
Throughout the area, the Montney section consistently shows log porosity that frequently exceeds 3% on a sandstone
scale. Analysis of cutting samples from the fine-grained sandstone stringers indicates visible porosity up to 15%. The fine
grained nature of the silts with their reduced permeability provides a deep basin and pervasive gas environment (Barree et al.
2007).
Through much of the area the Montney interval is over pressured. The Montney might be difficult to locate on logs
because it does not appear to have porosity or conventional log signatures associated with potential commercial productions
(Tristone Capital Inc. 2008).

Fig. 3—Montney type log.

Well Construction
There are two to three wells being drilled from well pads. Typically, the wells have horizontal legs of about 2000 m. The
length of the horizontal leg is limited to what can be efficiently completed as opposed to what can be drilled. The horizontal
legs have been drilled with 155.8 mm hole size for all completion types and are drilled using invert mud. The casing is 114
mm 22.47 kg/m L-80 for the perf and plug and hydrajet perforating and annular-path pumping with sand-plug diversion
completion types. The openhole packer completions require 177 mm intermediate casing to be run and set in the horizontal,
and 114 mm 22.47 kg/m L-80 casing is used in the openhole. The wells are drilled generally in a 120o ESE orientation, which
should enable a transverse fracturing strategy. Microseismic observation in 2006 indicated this frac direction and
demonstrated 50 m frac height development in the Upper Montney and 40 m frac height development in the Lower Montney.

Frac Design
The operator’s frac design is based on frac optimization developed in the Montney formation in a neighboring field. Initial
fracs in the Montney vertical wells used oil-based fracturing fluids. Initial horizontal wells were completed by isolating each
interval with bridge plugs for both the stimulation and the initial flowback. This enabled the opportunity to validate the frac
design and set expected production windows and benchmarks. The operator switched to N2-based and CO2-based foamed
water fluids. These fluids have demonstrated similar production results with lower costs. Typically the upper zones are
completed with N2 foams and the lower zones are completed with CO2 foams. Most fracs are designed using +/- 100 tonnes
of 20/40 sand. This design is based on a balance of production optimization and logistics. Estimate fluid recovery is about
40% during initial flowback.
The toe interval of most wells are perforated with CT-deployed perforating and a diagnostic fracture injection test (DFIT)
is performed. A 0.5 m interval is perforated with 20 spm at 60o phasing. This interval is perforated in an overbalanced
condition. A DFIT of 10.0 m3 is pumped that includes an acid spearhead of 3.0 m3. These tests are generally monitored for at
least 48 hours and the inferred reservoir pressure is used to meet regulatory requirements. This eliminates the need for
extended shut-in to determine reservoir pressure from a buildup test. Analysis techniques follow the methods described by
(Barree 2007).
Figs. 4-8 show the data from one such DFIT test and the analyses of it. In this case, the closure pressure is very obvious
in both the G-function and minifrac log-log analyses. In other cases, there is a large amount of near-wellbore tortuosity
4 SPE 119620

present that makes the ISIP and fracture closure pressures difficult to pinpoint. For reservoir pressure determination, the shut-
in time was 27 hours and not long enough for pseudoradial flow to be achieved to confirm reservoir pressure and kh.
Nevertheless, the pseudolinear flow section was clearly evident on both the minifrac log-log analysis and the after closure
analysis (ACA) log-log linear plot, so there is a high degree of confidence in the reservoir pressure calculated from the ACA
pseudolinear analysis. In addition to this pressure information obtained from the DFIT, the G-function analysis shows
characteristics that could be interpreted as height recession. Some analysis interpret this characteristic as secondary fracture
storage. In general, in this area, this characteristic does not appear to have had any negative effect on the ability to place a
frac treatment.
An analysis of about 30 DFIT tests indicates reservoir pressure of 27 to 30 MPa for the Upper Montney sections and 32 to
38 MPa for Lower Montney sections. The observed KH are between 0.04 to 0.17 md.m for Upper Montney sections and 0.05
to 0.15 md.m for Lower Montney. The frac gradients observed are 20 kPa/m for the Upper Montney and 23 kPa/m for the
Lower Montney.

Fig. 4—Sample diagnostic fracture injection test (DFIT).

SPE 119620 5

Fig. 5—Sample ACA–log linear.

Fig. 6—Sample ACA–pseudolinear.

6 SPE 119620

Fig. 7—Sample G function analysis.

Fig. 8—Sample log-log analysis.

SPE 119620 7

Well Completion methods

Perf and Plug

A significant number of horizontal wells have been completed with the perf and plug technique in a number of fields in North
America. This technique has demonstrated efficiency in a number of fields including the Barnett shale (Blanton and
Mackenzie 2006). During the early stages of the Montney field development, the operator used this method to complete
horizontal wells. There were two methods of deployment: pumpdown plugs and perf guns (Fig. 9) and CT-deployed plugs
and perf guns (Fig. 10).

Fig. 9—Pumpdown bridge plug perf gun completion.

Fig. 10—CT-deployed bridge plug perf gun completion.

A typical completion procedure using pumpdown plugs and perf guns would be:
1. Perforate first stage with CT-deployed tubing guns.
2. Perform DFIT test.
3. First fracturing stage is pumped.
4. Run plug and gun assembly to kick-off point with wireline.
5. Pumpdown plug and perf guns at an average rate of 0.9 m3/min (slower through build section).
6. Pump plug in place using line speed of ~ 33 m/min. Alternating stages of water and acid (5 m3) are used to help
ensure acid is placed across the zone of interest.
7. Set plug ~ 25 m below next set of perfs.
8. Pull wireline to next interval. Pressure test plug and perforate.
8 SPE 119620

9. Wireline is pulled out of hole.

10. Frac second zone and repeat process.

A typical completion procedure using CT-deployed plugs and perf guns would be:
1. Perforate first stage with CT-deployed tubing guns.
2. Perform DFIT test.
3. First fracturing stage is pumped.
4. Run in hole with plug and perforating assembly and set plug.
5. Pull to next interval. Pressure test plug and perforate second interval with CT-deployed tubing guns.
6. Spot 5 m3 of acid and pull CT out of hole.
7. Frac second zone and repeat process.

Initial field development used the pumpdown perf and plug method. Nineteen wells have been completed using this
technique. Numerous problems with premature setting of these plugs and associated intervention resulted in a switch to using
a CT-deployed perf and plug method. Thirteen wells have been completed using the CT deployed system with a lower
occurrence of failure.

Openhole Completions using Packers and Sleeves

An alternative to a cased completion is an openhole technique using packers and frac sleeves (Fig. 11). The types of packers
used were swellable (used on nine wells) and mechanical packers (used on two wells). There are alternatives available with
frac sleeves, either sleeves activated by a ball drop system or a mechanical shifting tool run on CT or jointed pipe. The
operator used all ball-drop systems in all of these wells.
This type of completion offers the opportunity to fracture up to 10 intervals in a well with no delays between stages. The
activation balls are dropped during flush, and will isolate the interval being fractured and open the next stage. After
stimulation, cleanup is assisted by flowing all zones simultaneously. The ball seats are milled out after initial cleanup and the
sleeve functions as a standard production device, allowing full wellbore access.
The operator has completed 11 wells using packers and sleeves. The operator has used a focused method of straddling the
frac port with packers and an unfocused method with one packer at 200 m intervals between the frac ports. The focused
technique should result in more focused fracture initiation and greater opportunity for a single fracture initiation point and
improved opportunity in placing the treatment (El Rabbaa 1989). However, in practice there appeared to be no significant
difference in observed frac pressures with a focused versus unfocused approach and generally lower breakdown pressure with
more exposed openhole.
On three occasions there was difficulty getting the entire casing/packer string to depth, and one case where the sleeve at
the heal end of the well opened prematurely. There has also been a case of casing collapse and as a result higher grade P-110
was used on subsequent completions.

Fig. 11—Openhole packer completion.

SPE 119620 9

Hydrajet Perforating and Annular-Path Pumping with Sand Plug Diversion

Hydrajet perforating and annular-path pumping with sand plug diversion (HPAP with SPD) was introduced to the industry in
2004 (Surjaatmadja et al. 2005). Initial work with this method was performed on vertical wells. The operator has completed
over 27 wells, using HPAP with SPD technique in the Montney formation (Fig. 12).
The initial HPAP with SPD performed on a horizontal well in the Montney horizon was executed in 2005. The work has
been generally done with 2-in. CT 90K grade. A simple BHA consisting of a CT connector, double flapper check valve,
straight joint, centralizer, jetting tool and bull nose has been used in HPAP with SPD in Montney horizontal wells (Fig. 13).
The check valve is required as the wells do produce low levels of H2S. The presence of a check valve in the BHA does
provide some limits to the procedures that can be employed with the HPAP with SPD technique.

Fig. 12—Hydrajet/sand plug completion.

10 SPE 119620

Fig. 13—Hydrajet BHA.

Advantages with the HPAP with SPD process include:

1. Ability to perforate at any depth in the well.
2. Ability to pump aggressive frac designs that address near-wellbore flow convergence that approach screenout or
screenout without significant impact on the process (Surjaatmadja et al. 2005).

3. Ability to quickly circulate acid to perforation depth.

4. Ability to quickly clean up from a screenout and move on to next interval.

The HPAP with SPD process consist of the following basic steps:
1. RIH with CT to first frac depth.
2. Hydrajet perforate interval.
3. Break down formation and pump frac down annulus.
4. Move CT to next interval during pumping of frac.
5. Pump a sand plug for diversion.
6. Pressure test plug.
7. Hydrajet next interval and repeat process.

In most cases, the first interval was perforated with TCP and a DFIT injection test performed. In these cases the CT would
be run to second interval depth before the start of the first frac.
In the three years of application of the HPAP with SPD process in the Montney formation, many improvements have been
made to this process to make the delivery more reliable and efficient.
Initial RIH to TD is sometimes difficult to achieve. The use of pipe-to-pipe friction reducers enables CT to be consistently
run to TD. Several friction reducers were evaluated on a lubricity tester. The friction reducer selected demonstrated better
friction reduction at lower concentrations (Fig. 14). The method of deployment is to start injection of the friction reducer
SPE 119620 11

down CT so that it will exit CT into annulus 250 to 500 m before predicted lockup. The concentration pumped is designed
to deliver concentration of 0.5 to 1.0% when diluted in the fluid in hole. Observation indicates that this can reduce drag
friction by 25% or more.

Fig. 14—Pipe-to-pipe friction reduction.

The hydrajet assembly use has been a three-jet perforator with three jets of 3/16-in. diameter jets at 120o phasing on one
plane. Hydrajetting stage has been designed to deliver a minimum of 21 MPa differential across jets for 10 minutes using
20/40 sand at a concentration of 100 kg/m3. Wells have been perforated with both one and two sets of perforations (three and
six perforations). There has been little difference noticed in both ability to breakdown and in production results. As a result,
current practice is to perforate one set of three perforations per interval with the hydrajet tool.
An improved hydrajet tool assembly was designed in early 2007 and the prototype was tested in June 2007. Development of
this tool assembly has enabled up to 11 or more intervals to be hydrajetted without risk of premature tool failure
(Surjaatmadja et al. 2008). The use of this tool has eliminated the requirement of tripping a tool half-way through a multi-
interval horizontal completion.
Breakdown and establishing frac rates is somewhat problematic in Montney horizontal wells. Having CT at perforation
depth enables acid to be the first fluid to be injected into perforations. Acid has improved the ability to establish feed rates
and break down the well. In addition, sand scours are often required to reduce near-wellbore effects and establish fracturing
rates.
Placing effective sand plugs in horizontal wells can be challenging. Application of the HPAP with SPD in other areas has
relied on the ability of the well to screenout when placing a high concentration (2400 kg/m3) sand plug at the end of the frac
and injecting 1.0 to 2.0 m3 of this slurry. Only a small percentage of Montney wells will screen out with this method even
when pump rates are reduced before the sand plug injection.
This method results in the high concentration sand plug settling in the horizontal wellbore, leaving at least one perforation
on the high side of the well open. Initial attempts at re-suspending this sand plug and attempting to bridge in perforations had
a less than 50% success rate. This technique was slightly more effective if pressure was allowed to decline close to closure
pressure. However, even with forced closure techniques, it could take hours to approach closure pressure and success was not
guaranteed. The limitations of not being able to reverse circulate because of the required check valve in the BHA often
required repeated attempts to bullhead additional sand plugs down annulus to effectively bridge and pressure test.
Methods based on increasing sand bed height and bridging sand slurries in perforations at low rates were developed to
increase the efficiency of placing sand plugs in horizontal wellbores. Correlations have been developed to predict both sand
bed height that can be developed and slurry concentrations that can be pumped over a sand bed at equilibrium (Nguyen et al.
2001). Sand beds are built up using two methods. One method is by running in hole with CT into the existing sand bed and
re-suspending the leading edge of the existing sand bed and pumping over and increasing the height of the existing sand bed
(Fig 15). An alternate method is to pump a sand slurry down CT and pump this slurry over top the existing sand bed at rates
that will deposit the slurry and increase the height of the sand plug (Fig. 16). These methods can be used independently or in
conjunction with each other to achieve effective results.
12 SPE 119620

Fig. 15—Sand plug duning. Fig. 16—Topping up a sand plug.

These techniques tend to have two results. The sand slurry will bridge in the perforations and create an effective sand plug
(Fig. 17). If bridging does not occur, the sand plug with the additional bed height can be re-suspended and bridge in the
casing (Fig. 18). The use of these techniques has provided the ability to consistently set durable sand plugs in an efficient
manner. The pressure declines in both these examples represent a decline that corresponds to a durable plug. Plugs that
pressure test with very quick pressure declines have demonstrated that they are less durable and subject to failure during
subsequent operations.
SPE 119620 13

Fig. 17—Sand plug bridging during placement.

Fig. 18—Sand plug bridging during testing.

Summary
When production results from different completion types are compared, there appears to be a similar distribution of
production per interval with the various completion methods used. Therefore, the focus of the operator has been to use well
construction and completions costs and associated risks as the primary driver in selection of optimal completion process.
The completion costs and associate time for the methods discussed are presented in Fig. 19. The clean costs represent the
average completion cost per fractured interval with no unplanned events. The contingency costs are the cost of unplanned
events averaged over total number of fractured intervals. Frac days represents the average time per completion method to
fracture eight intervals per well. The best cost is the lowest completion cost per interval on a per well average in the wells
14 SPE 119620

studied. At this time, the HPAP with SPD method is demonstrating lower cost, lower cost associated with risks and faster
completion time than other methods.

Fig. 19—Comparison of completion costs per interval.

Conclusions
1. Fracture stimulation of horizontal wells in the Montney formation in NE British Columbia is an effective reservoir
exploitation strategy.
2. Single interval evaluation is important in setting early benchmarks for horizontal well performance.
3. All completion methods reviewed in this paper are viable for completing horizontal wells in this area.
4. No completion method is demonstrating consistent advantages with respect to increased production.
5. The hydrajet perforating and annular-path pumping with sand plug diversion is providing lower cost, less risk, and
faster completions than other methods.

References
Barree, R.D., Barree, V.L., Craig, D.P. 2007. Holistic Fracture Diagnostics. Paper SPE 107877 presented at the Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas
Technology Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 16-18 April.
Blanton, E.M., Mackenzie, G. 2006. Hydraulic pump-down frac plug and subsequent coiled tubing removal increase client efficiency in
Barnett Shale. Paper SPE 100139 presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference & Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas 4-5
April.
East, L E, Bailey, M, B.W. McDaniel. 2008. Hydrajet Perforating and Proppant Plug Diversion in Multi-Interval Horizontal Well Fracture
Stimulation. Paper SPE presented at the SPE Tight-gas Completions Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 9-11 June.
El Rabaa, W. 1989. Experimental Study of Hydraulic Fracture Geometry initiated from horizontal wells. SPE 19720 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 8-11October.
Montney Python—the Holy Grail of Canadian Tight-gas. Tristone Capital Inc. Industry update. (March 14, 2008).
Nguyen Philip, Sanders Mike, McMechan David, Gibson Ron, Lord David. 2001. Tests expand knowledge of horizontal gravel packing,
Oil & Gas Journal Aug 20 2001.
Surjaatmadja, J.B., East, L. E., Luna J. B., Hernandez, J.O.E. 2005. An Effective HydraJet Fracturing Implementation Using CT and
Annular Stimulation Fluid Delivery. Paper SPE 94098 presented at the SPE/ICoTA CT Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands,
Texas, 12–13 April.
Surjaatmadja, J.B., Bezanson Jeff, Lindsay Sharlene, Ventosilla Pedro, Rispler Keith., 2008. New Hydrajet tool demonstrates improved
performance for perforating and fracturing applications. Paper SPE 113722 presented at the SPE/ICoTA CT Conference and
Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, 1-2 April 2008.