URTeC: 2845332

Multivariate Study of the Utica: Marrying the Rock to the Completion

Amanda Trumbo*1, Jeff Bowman*1, Leo Lasecki*1; 1. Chesapeake Energy.
Copyright 2018, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) DOI 10.15530/urtec-2018-2845332

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 23-25 July 2018.

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 information 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 their own risk. The information herein does not
necessarily reflect any position of URTeC. Any reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper by anyone other than the author without the written consent of URTeC
is prohibited.

Abstract

One of the most substantial challenges currently faced in many unconventional plays is linking subsurface
fundamentals and empirical results/measured data, e.g., type curves, to predictive production. One way to achieve
this link between subsurface fundamentals and well production for optimal completion techniques is through
multivariate analysis. Roth (2013) showed this method has been used for sweet spot mapping, but in field
development of unconventionals today, the next best well that meets the economics will be drilled and completed
regardless of whether it is in the sweet spot or not. The more powerful use of this approach, therefore, is marrying
the rock to the completion to optimize well performance.

In unconventional reservoirs, production is driven by the complex interplay of engineering and geology. There are
no bi-variate crossplots of engineering, geological, or geophysical variables that are capable of adequately
describing the deliverability of the reservoir. Numerous engineering and geologic attributes must be considered
simultaneously using multivariate techniques, such as multiple regression analysis, in order to properly model
production. To understand key play driver relationships, well performance must be normalized with engineering
data in order to isolate the impact of geologic attributes on well performance.

In this study, a well performance predictive model was created in the Utica from identified key play drivers that
combined engineering, geologic, and geophysical parameters to test different completion designs across areas of
varying geology. Using this predictive model, which was supported by independent data from current analytical
modeling and competitor data, the completion design was changed for a well pad drilled and completed in early
!√#
2017. The model predicted the of this pad to be approximately 18, which was the upper limits of performance
$%
!√#
input into the model. Initial production and tubing pressure show this pad exceeded our expectations with an $%
of
23, which is the highest in the field.

Introduction

A multivariate analysis was conducted in the Utica to link subsurface fundamentals and engineering parameters to
optimize well performance. The core productive area of the Utica play is located in Eastern Ohio and West Virginia
and was deposited in a shallow foreland setting during the Upper Ordovician (450-470 MA). The “Utica”
encompasses two formations: the Utica formation proper and the organic-rich underlying Point Pleasant formation.
The formation lithologies are primarily calcareous mudstones to slightly argillaceous limestones with graded
bedding and laminations present (Wickstrom, 2011). Regional structure consists of a monoclinal dip to the east and
very minor faulting throughout the core area with only two major faults trending NW-SE. Maturity and pressure
trends typically follow structure and formation depths range from 5000 ft. in the volatile oil window to greater than
12,000 ft. in the dry gas window to the east. There is some variability North-South within the Utica that is related to
the changes in depositional environment along with differential uplift and erosion rates associated with the different
fault blocks to the north (Singh, 2016). The targeted reservoir is typically over pressured and has a gross thickness
between 120’ – 130’ and porosity ranging from less than 3 - 8%.
URTeC 2845332 2

The dataset used in the multivariate analysis was comprised of over 700 wells, including 100 competitor wells, 30
mapped geologic attributes, over 30 engineering variables, and multiple well performance indicators. Courtier
(2016) discussed the importance of the combination of empirical observations and their interpretations in a
multivariate model to understand productivity. A full-field statistical analysis was conducted that provided the
framework for the multivariate analysis and focused efforts on generating meaningful models. In essence, we
utilized all reservoir and source rock property maps and converted them into statistically meaningful crossplots to
determine key play driver relationships. Once impactful variables were identified, they were used to run a geologic
cluster analysis to identify “like” geologic areas that helped prioritize key subsurface play driver relationships for
the multivariate model input (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Geologic clustering map colored by class overlain by phase windows in green and red dashed lines.

The geologic classes were calculated using pressure, maturity, porosity, thickness, Vclay, and VOM in commercial
software using K-means clustering. Figure 2 shows how the geologic clustering separated out the twelve classes
shown in Figure 1. This clustering map provides a way to understand which geologically mapped attribute is
‘driving’ different areas of the play in the absence of production (Bashore, 2018). For example, Vclay is the
variable that changes the most between classes 8 & 9, therefore it would be interpreted as a ‘driver’. Additionally,
the cluster map is a useful method to QC the mapping of each individual attribute and how they relate to one
another. It is also interesting to visually compare the geologic clusters with the phase windows to see how the
geology may be contributing to production differences within each phase. While the oil and dry gas line phase
windows shown on Figure 1 are mainly driven by existing production, they inherently include geologic context. In
order to tease out how the geologic and engineering factors are controlling production we must employ a
multivariate approach.
URTeC 2845332 3

Figure 2: Geologic clustering class variability graph.

One of the biggest challenges of running a single predictive model for the Utica is the multiphase hydrocarbons
present across the play. To remove some of the complexity, a single model was developed for this study covering a
portion of the dry gas window. After generating a model, crossplots and predictive maps were used to identify areas
of under-stimulation. This model also provided guidance on optimized engineering parameters by using the
‘known/fixed’ geologic variables at a well location. Inputting fixed geologic parameters, the model was run to show
!√#
the impact to $%
, a productivity key performance indicator (KPI), by changing the engineering parameters (Miller,
!√#
2010). $%
was chosen as the preferred KPI over other metrics like EUR or cumulative production due to the
multiple hydrocarbon phases present and its inclusion of initial flowing bottom-hole pressure data. The multivariate
model gives us our best understanding of the interplay between rock and completion designs by allowing completion
parameters to be tested for their effect on productivity.

Method

A significant portion of the project was allocated to data collection, loading, and QC before the predictive model
was created. In the era of ‘Big Data’, it is easier than ever to blindly grab-and-dump data from all disciplines into a
model and generate quick results. However, without a rigorous QC process of the input data, e.g., histograms,
outlier identification, etc., inaccurate data and relationships could bias the model. Figure 3 shows the workflow
followed, which allows analysis of how each variable interacts with other inputs and response variables as well as
any data biases or trends. An unbiased and robust predictive model requires sufficient variability for each attribute.
Often times during well performance evaluations it is requested from management to compare like-wells with like-
wells. However, with a multivariate analysis, the more variability contained within the dataset leads to a better
correlation between the predictive model and empirical data. In most instances, variability for the engineering data
must come from the inclusion of competitor data.
URTeC 2845332 4

Due to the difficulty in well performance indicators capturing the variations of multiple hydrocarbon phases, we
limited our dataset to a portion of the dry gas window, which reduced our well set to 124. A statistical analysis was
carried out to ensure that the variability and robustness of the dry gas data set was consistent with the full field set.

Figure 3: Multivariate workflow used in project.

Extractions of geologic maps, seismic attributes, engineering, and production data were then made to the wellbores
!√# 𝑨√𝑲
to be compared with the well performance indicator, $%
. The team chose 𝒇𝒕
to normalize productivity within the
study area, which to-date has been a strong indicator of well performance for the lean and dry gas portions of the
Utica formation (Miller, 2010). Permeability measurements are relatively consistent across the field, and included
in the multivariate workflow through a strong correlation with porosity, thus it is believed that hydraulic fracture
𝑨√𝑲
surface area, or otherwise the A in , is delivering majority of the variation in productivity. The correlation table
𝒇𝒕
in Figure 4 shows the need for multivariate analysis as there are no bivariate correlations that adequately predict
!√#
$%
. In fact, the best engineering bivariate correlation with well performance is cluster spacing with a correlation
coefficient of -0.268 and the best geologic correlation coefficient is <0.2.

Figure 4: Correlation table of attributes used in multivariate model. The cells colored red indicate a low correlation with one another 0-0.5, yellow
indicates a moderate correlation (0.5-0.7), and green show a high correlation with one another (0.7-1).
URTeC 2845332 5

Figure 4 shows there is high collinearity between Reservoir Pressure, Point Pleasant Thickness, Seismic Acoustic
Impedance, and Seismic Vp/Vs. Therefore, these attributes will need to be run individually in the model to avoid
redundancy and over-training of the model. In many cases, the seismic attributes are giving us similar information
as one or more of the geologic variables at higher resolution. By running several models, with/without seismic data,
and comparing with the crossplots, we are able to adequately account for several reservoir attributes with seismic
attributes.

After several iterations, the model converged on a set of attributes that provided the highest correlation to
productivity, as well as maintained each individual attribute’s appropriate correlation to productivity as defined by
the correlation table. The cross-plots in Figure 5 illustrate how the model integrated all of the variables. The impact
of each variable on the model can be derived through the model significance table and through inflection points on
the cross-plots. As previously mentioned, it is important to have sufficient variability in the model to be able to
make accurate predictions.

!√#
Figure 5: Multivariate model inputs and relationships to the well performance indicator, , and significance in model.
$%

Results

Productivity prediction maps were created from the multivariate model by inputting the known geologic properties
and modifying the engineering design inputs. Figure 6 shows two productivity prediction maps, one using a
standard completion design and one using an optimized completion design. The optimized design includes
increased fluid/cluster, reduced cluster spacing, and reduced percent gel guided by the individual relationships
within the multivariate model shown in Figure 5. Cluster spacing and percent gel have a higher model significance
so changing these parameters should have a higher impact on productivity than changing other attributes. An
𝑨√𝑲
inverse relationship between cluster spacing and predicted 𝒇𝒕
as well as percent gel is suggested by the model,
URTeC 2845332 6

𝑨√𝑲
therefore, reducing these attributes should correspond to an increase in productivity. The highest in our dataset
𝒇𝒕
included in the model was 18, therefore the model will be unable to extrapolate beyond this limit even though the
𝑨√𝑲
variable trends suggest higher is possible. Simply put, we don’t have enough data variability to see the upper
𝒇𝒕
and lower bounds of individual attributes. The well with an optimized completion design was predicted to have an
𝑨√𝑲 𝑨√𝑲
of 18, but is currently producing at an of 23.
𝒇𝒕 𝒇𝒕

!√# !√#
Figure 6: Multivariate model maps of predicted . The map on the left shows the predicted using a standard completion design and the
$% $%
map on the right shows the increase in predicted productivity by applying an enhanced completion design. The maps are gridded using a model
without seismic outside of 3D coverage. Seismic data courtesy of TGS.

𝑨√𝑲
Figure 7 illustrates the cumulative frequency distribution of all the wells in the multivariate study. The “base
𝒇𝒕
completions” were identified as older completion designs with higher cluster/stage counts, larger cluster spacing,
and/or lower fluid/stage. The P10/P90 of the “base completions” data set is approximately 2; with the well set of
approximately 124 wells, the study area is considered both statistically relevant and geologically low-risk (SPEE
Monograph 3, 2009). The newest data set of “enhanced completions”, or wells with more aggressive completions
𝑨√𝑲
than the base designs, are showing to have a higher in the study area, approximately 50% higher than the
𝒇𝒕
baseline cumulative frequency distribution. The team implemented a multivariate recommended completion design
𝑨√𝑲
in 2017, which is noted in Fig. 7, to have the highest .
𝒇𝒕
URTeC 2845332 7

!√#
Figure 7: Multivariate model inputs and relationships to the well performance indicator, , and significance in model. Expected 40%-50% uplift
$%
from the expected base design.

Conclusion

In unconventional reservoirs, the geology is unforgiving with respect to well production and optimized field
development requires a detailed analysis of the complex interplay of geology and engineering. This study was a
multi-discipline look at what drives the Utica from a geologic and engineering perspective and what could be done
to best exploit the asset moving forward. It also has implications for how we think about field development in new
plays and the importance of collecting a wide variety of data early in the play’s life. The results from the project
were: confirmation and significance of key play driver relationships, a well optimization tool marrying geology with
!√#
engineering, and predicted $%
. While the most visually appealing output of the model is the predictive maps, the
model can be also used to optimize the completion design for each well on the drill schedule. The geologic
variables in the model become fixed for the pad based on subsurface maps and variable completion designs are
tested to show the probability distribution of well performance. This led to an adjustment of the completion on a
!√#
pad and resulted in 50% uplift in
$%
, which is the highest in the field. The results successfully provided optimized
well completion guidelines and exceeded our expectations with one of the best wells in the field. Not only do the
tools derived from this study provide an opportunity to continue optimizing well performance and realize additional
upside on non-core acreage, the value from key learnings and data relationships recognized throughout the process
cannot go overstated.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the seismic data owners, TGS, for permission to publish and present the 3D seismic
data. As well as the Appalachia Basin geoscience and engineering teams and Geoscience Technology team for their
input.

References

Bashore, M., and C. Grant, 2018, Multivariate statistical applications for quantifying contribution of seismic data to
production prediction in the Wolfcamp, Midland Basin: The Leading Edge, 3, No. 3, 190-198.
URTeC 2845332 8

Courtier, J., J. Wicker, T. Jeffers, and P. Curth, 2016, Optimizing the Development of a Stacked Continuous
Resource Play in the Midland Basin: URTeC 2461811.

Miller, M., C. Jenkins, and R. Rai, 2010, Applying Innovative Production Modeling Techniques to Quantify
Fracture Characteristics, Reservoir Properties, and Well Performance in Shale Gas Reservoirs: SPE 139097.

Roth, M., and M. Roth, 2013, An Analytic Approach to Geologic Interpretation and Petrophysical Modeling of the
Bakken/Three Forks Play: URTeC 1619602.

Singh, A., A. Bertoncello, F. Brigaud, and D. Foulon, 2016, Early Delineation of Productive Areas in
Unconventional Plays Using Uplift Intensity – a Utica Example: URTeC 2430161.

Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers Monograph 3, 2009, Guidelines for the Practical Evaluation of
Undeveloped Reservoirs in Resource Plays.

Wickstrom, L., Perry, C., Riley, R. and M. Erenpreiss, 2011, The Utica-Point Pleasant Shale Play of Ohio
Presentation, Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Geological Survey.