American Oil and Gas Reporter - December 2016 - 66

SpecialReport: Well Stimulation & Completion Technology
Preliminary Analysis
Figure 4 shows the location of the
perforation clusters and the current source.
The perforation clusters are 60 feet apart,
with the current source located 50 feet
up hole from the top set of perforations.
Figure 5 is a slightly offset view of the
outside of the highest-intensity EM response for the proppant differenced data
on 10-meter grid blocks from the preliminary analysis, and Figure 6 is an

overhead view of the same image (note
that the original analysis was performed
on 25-meter grid spacing, but has since
been reprocessed on 10-meter spacing).
The maximum extent of the measurements is approximately 350 feet long
(down the lateral), 150 feet high and 175
feet wide. If one was to sum the volume
contained within the propped reservoir
volume, it would yield approximately 2
million cubic feet. Of course, this likely

FIGURE 5
Offset View of Highest-Intensity EM Response
For Proppant Differenced Data (10-Meter Spacing)

FIGURE 6
Overhead View of Highest-Intensity EM Response
For Proppant Differenced Data (10-Meter Spacing)

is not the full extent of the propped
volume, but only the measurable volume
(i.e., above the noise level) with minimal
denoising or signal processing enhancement techniques.
When viewing the two figures together,
several observations can be made. First,
proppant was detected both above and
below the stages, with proppant found
up hole from the top perforation cluster
and down hole from the bottom perforation
cluster.
Second, there appear to be two planar
fractures that cut through the middle two
perforation clusters. Also, in the area of
the first (up hole) perforation cluster, detectable proppant was found on only one
side of the wellbore.
Finally, it is worth reminding that the
first ≈180,000 pounds of proppant pumped
in the stage was not detectable (standard
20/40-mesh white sand), and there was a
significant volume of clean fluid pumped
in the middle of the detectible proppant
portion of the treatment, so conclusions
about the final overall geometry of the
fractures must be made carefully.
The B-minus-A differenced dataset
(stages containing only standard, nonelectrically conductive proppant) showed
no appreciable changes in the e-field, effectively eliminating the possibility that
the C-minus-B response was a false-positive. Additionally, while the fracture
probably was already primarily closed
when measurement C was taken, a quick
look at the D measurement suggests that
the electrical conductivity of the detectable
proppant was marginally stronger during
the final measurement, in line with laboratory experiments that suggested signal
strength would increase with stress on
the proppant.
As additional development work and
field testing continue to refine and prove
the far-field proppant location method
using EM differencing with detectable
proppant, the promising results of the
initial application in the Permian Basin
demonstrate the technology's potential
to revolutionize the effectiveness of fracture
treatment designs and optimize field development efforts in the future.
❒
Editor's Note: For more comprehensive information on the far-field proppant
detection method or the Permian Basin
field test, see SPE 179161, a technical
paper presented at the Society of Petroleum
Engineers 2016 Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference, held Feb. 9-11
in The Woodlands, Tx.

66 THE AMERICAN OIL & GAS REPORTER
American Oil and Gas Reporter - December 2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Oil and Gas Reporter - December 2016
