F

,,,

D
,

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE49106

Proppants, We Still Dont Need No Proppants - A Perspective of Several Operators

Ray N. Walker, Jr., SPE, Union Pacific Resources Co.; Jeffery L. Hunter, SPE, Pennzoil Exploration and Production Co.;
Al C. Brake, SPE, Amoco; Paul A. Fagin, SPE, Valence Operating Co.; Nick Steinsberger, SPE, Mitchell Energy Corp.

Copyright
1998,Scciety

improved substantially in the past few years, there are still

more questions than answers.
There have been numerous research projects directed
towards measuring the critical parameters of a hydraulic
fracture. These projects have involved microseismic
technology, downhole tiltmeters, and even mine-back
procedures such as in the M-Site projects. The Cotton Valley
Imaging Project Consortium also provided substantial funds in
order to image Cotton Valley Fracture treatments in the
Carthage Cotton Valley Field of East Texas. These projects
tend to introduce several unknowns in describing the critical
attributes of a fracture.
The industry has also directed substantial resources towards
understanding fluid rheology and proppant transport. If
propp,ant conductivity in the fracture is the key to productivity,
then the industry must understand the physics of proppant
placcmcnt and degradation of the proppant pack over time.
This influence has led to the development of highly
sophisticated fluids and monitoring technology designed to
effectively place proppant in the pay zones.
What if proppant placement and conductivity were not the
most critical factors to achieve a successfid stimulation
treatment in a tight oil or gas reservoir? Consider the
following:
.
Rock fractures often have rough surfaces. Atlcr the
fracture closes, the residual aperture distribution can
be very heterogeneous in all three dimensions
forming a \rery conductive path even at high closure
stresses.
.
Proppant along with gel residue could actually impair
fracture permeability and its ability to cleanup.
Fracture extension and cleanup is easier to achieve
with low viscosity fluids. Fracture extension is the
key design parameter in tight reservoirs.
Failure mechanisms in the rock are not completely
understood. Effects of residuat deformation and shear
(or slippage-type failures) could result in flow paths
of much higher conductivity than a conventional
fracture filled with proppant and residue.
Recent research projects indicate that there may
indeed be a zone of fractures instead of the one
major fracture as depicted in most design models.
Recent research projects also indicate that the
majority of the fracture length may be achieved very
early in the treatment with much lCSSvolume that

of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1998 SPE Annual TscfmicaI Conference
Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 27-W September 1998

and

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Ccmmittee fdlting
review of
inronnation contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s), Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been rsviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subjed to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, doss not necessarily reflect any
position of the society of Petroleum Engineers, its offiiers, or msmbers Papem presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Ccsnmittees or th4 Swiety of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronk reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for ccmmewal purpcses without the writien mnsent of the Scciety of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract c4 not more than 3CXI
wordq
illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract
must contain
conspicuous
acknm%iedgment of where and by whom the paper was presented Write Librarian, SPE, PO.
Sax S33830, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract

In SPE 38611 Proppants, We Dont Need No Proppants data

showed that fracture treatments using treated water and VCIY
low proppant concentrations (watcrfrats) were very successful
in the East Texas Cotton Valley sandstone. The paper
prcscntcd limited initial results from one operator in one field.
Following this paper a more comprehensive set of production
comparisons of wells completed with standard frac jobs and
watcrfracs since 1996 for several diflerent operators in the
East Texas area are presented. Analysis of offset comparisons,
economics, and ot.hcr benefits are described from the aspect of
several different operators.
Conclusions will point out the cost savings and the ability
to e@oit marginal reserves with this technique. There will
also bc a perspective from each operator. The waterfrac
technique has lcd to widespread discussions among nuany
operators in various tight gas plays. hhny operators are
exTcrimcnting with the technique and experiencing exccllcnt
results. This technique is a major contribution to the reduction
in completion costs in wells that must be hydraulically
fractured. The indus~ has experienced a major inflation of
well construction costs and this technique will be of
paramount importance in our efforts to keep costs down in
order to continue to develop tight gas reserves. Techniques
such as these require many months of production in order to
analyze to determine the actual results. Several techniques and
the perspectives of several operators and how they make these
important decisions will be presented here.

Introduction

Hydraulic fracturing remains the key technology to develop

tight oil and gas reservoirs, The industry spends millions of
research dollars trying to better define and understand the
mechanics of fracturing. Although fracture diagnostics have

497

WALKER, HUNTER,

BRAKE, FAGIN, STEINSBERGER

previously anticipated,
All of these facts tend to dictate that the industty has many
questions yet to be answered. The following dcscribcs the
approaches taken by several operators interested in exploring
this technique.

SPE 49106

rese,archc& it may be possible that the waterfrac

technique will work without any proppant. Several
operators are testing this idea.
The application of this technique in other areas and in
other reservoirs. The waterfmc technique has been
utilized in several different areas and formations. A
database of results will be generated to track the success
of these applications.
All aspects of WCI1construction costs have increased
dramatically during the past couple of years. These increases
have forced all operators to be aggressive in exploring
technologies that can effectively reduce those well
construction costs. UPR began its cost reduction efforts in
1992 and has continually researched and implemented new
technologies and processes in this effort. This focus has
allowed UPR to become very aggressive in trying new
technologies such as the waterfrac technique. Continual
improvement of the technique has resulted in almost 80/0frac
cost savings in some areas, while yielding similar production
results as would be expected in normal in-till development
programs. Detailed case and field studies will be presented in
SPE 49194 Waterfracs Results from 50 Cotton Valley
Wells.

Description of Waterfracs
Typical watcrfrac designs involve pumping large volumes

of water containing a minimum of chemicals and generally

20/40 Ottowa sand mixed at % ppg, Some jobs may involve a
very small tail-in of 2 ppg. Most jobs are designed with a 40/0
to 50XOpad volume. Chemicals included in the water will
generally be a srrudl amount of surfactant, friction reducer, and
sometimes clay protection.
Job designs have ranged from 10 bpm designs to 80 bpm
designs utilizing from 5,000 pounds of proppant to 300,000
pounds of proppant. Fluid volumes range from 400 bbls up to
20,000 bhls
Union Pacific Resources

Union Pacific Resources (UPR) performed the first

waterfrac in the Taylor section of the Cotton Valley
formation in October of 1995 in the Oak Hill Field. Initial
results were very encouraging and since that time, UPR has
completed approximately 150 wells and performed well over
250 frac jobs with the waterfracs. As referredtoinSPE38611,
UPR has kept extensive records to allow for detailed
comparisons to offset producers and to analyze the results of
this technique. Early results showed comparable production
for 30%to 70V0less fracturing costs. 160 waterfrac jobs were
purnpcd in 1997 saving UPR approximately $4.5 million.
Performance results of offset WCIISin the same unit complctcd
within 3 months of each other are presented in Figure 1. Early
examples such as these provided substantial evidence of
success with this technique. More extensive case studies will
be presented in SPE 49194 Waterfracs - Results from 50
Cotton Valley Wells.
UPR has long been a leader in development of WC1l
completion technology in East Texas, UPR has averaged
completing over 67 wells per year since 1991. One of the most
significant new processes is the watcrfrac technique. SPE
38611 pointed out some of theories of why the technique has
worked so well. Further testing and diagnostics are still
needed to fully understand exactly why the technique is
successful. The technique has now been utilized in many
different formations in different areas of the country and has
shown promising results.
UPR is committed to further developing the application of
this technique in the following areas:
.
The application of fit-for-purpose frac equipment. It is not
necessary to utilize the s,ame equipment utilized in
conventional fracturing operations. These treatments
dictate no standby, lCSSsand h,andling equipment, and lCSS
blending equipment, Only the bare essentials arc nccdcd
in monitoring,
.
The elimination of all chemical additives. Clay control,
surfactants and buffering agents may not be nccdcd.
.
The elimination of propp,ant. As the mechanisms are
498

Operator

Perspectives

- Pennzoil

Pennzoil Explomtion and Production Company operates 53

640-acre units in Panola County Texas. Pennzoil has drilled an
average of 24 wells pcr year for the last six years, and plans to
continue drilling with 2 rigs through 1999. Having a
continuous development program provides opportunities to
test many different innovations. In marginal intll drilling
programs such as these, cost reduction is critical to expanding
the dc~elopmcnt of Pennzoils East Texas acreage.
In 1994 Pcnnzoils avemge cost to drill and complete a
Cotton Valley well in Panola County was $970,000. Today
that same well can be flowing down the line for $650,000.
Much of the cost savings were due to process improvements in
drilling. Additional cost savings were achieved by making
changes to the well completion designs, including switching
from 4 1/2 to 2 7/8 casing, Fmcture treatments were
designed for lCSSfracture height, targeting specific pay zones
and avoiding zones that could be water productive. These
improvements, although significant, barely offset recent
increases in vendor costs. A paradigm shifi was needed.
Although the idea of low \iscosity fracturing in the tight
rocks of East Texas seemed to contradict popular fracture
theory, the potential savings justified the risks due to the size
of the drilling program, In June of 1997, Pcnnzoil pumped its
first waterfrac. A recompletion candidate was selected, rather
than a new well, to reduce the capital at risk. Upon
rccompletio~ the well performance was acceptable, and the
ZICtUal
COStS were S~O/o lfXS
than
thf3 ~
cost eStimate. As a
result of this success, Pennzoil phased waterfracs into the
program during the fall of 1997. Numerous waterfraced wells
have since been put on production with rates typical of other
wells in the area. Currently, Pennzoil has tested waterfrac
stimulations in the Bcthany and Carthage Fields.
In the Bethany field, Pennzoil agreed with its partner to

SPE49106

PROPPANTS,

WE STILL DONT NEED NO PROPPANTS

pump a conventional frac as an offset comparison to a recently

complctcd waterfrac. The waterfraced WC1lwas originally
completed in two lobes of the Taylor Zone. Each zone was
waterfraced separately using a total of 3,691 barrels of fluid
and 51,550 pounds of proppant, The conven[ionaIIy fraccd
WCI1was also completed in the same t$vo zones. Both zones
were fractured during one treatment with 1,616 barrels of
borate fracture fluid and 165,300 pounds of propp,ant. The two
stages on the watcrfraced well cost only $1,000 more than the
single borate job despite the difference in totaI fluid volume
pumped and the two set up ch,arges instead of one. The
water-fraccd ~vcll produced twice as much as the
conventionally fractured well during the first two months of
production. After two months, t.hrce additionrd watcrfrac
stages were added to the watcrfraccd WC1l.Production results
are shown in Figure 2, Based on the succcss of this WC1l,
Pcnnzoil and its partner have agreed to watcrfrac the
additional zones in the other well.
In the Carthage Ficl& one of Pcnnzoils early tests of
watcrfracs involves three of the Cotton Valley WC1lSon a 640acre unit. The watcrfraced WCIIWQSstimulatcd in two fracture
stages. The first stage was in the Taylor Sand. This stage
utilized 3,219 barrels of ftuid and 68,000 pounds of 20/40 mesh resin coated proppant or RCP. The second stage was in
Zone 6, using 2,771 barrels of fluid and 54,700 pounds of
20/40-mesh Ottowa sand. The hvo-stage total equaled 5,990
bards of watcrfrac fluid and 122,700 pounds of proppant.
Earlier that year, two other WCIISon the unit were complctcd
in the same zones using con\vntionaJ techniques. One wdl
was treated with 39,001 bbls of fluid and 582,000 pounds of
proppant (50,000), The second WC1lwas treated with 2,904
bbIs of fluid and 402,000 Ibs of proppant (30,000 RCP). Sce
Figure 3 for production comparisons.
The average cost savings in these early examples was only
about 20Yo.However, since these early tests, Pcnnzoil has
pumped 57 additional watcrfrac stages, and continues to pump
two to three new stages pcr week. Continual development of
this technique has resulted in 40% to 50V0 reductions in
fracturing costs. Fracturing equipment on the initial jobs was
set up very similar to conventional jobs, but as tnore
watcrfracs were pumped, it was dctcrmincd that less
equipment could be utilized. Other improvements included
adjusting treatment rates for various expcctcd fmcturc heights,
adjusting the amount of friction reducer used to correspond to
different tubing sizes and treatment rates, and understanding
the use of fluid sweeps to reduce proppant settling near the
wellbore. Pennzoil feels that without the viscosity of gelled
fracture fluids, injection rate is a major factor in the success of
the treatments. In some cases, it has been necessary to utilize
Iargcr casing to achieve the desired injection rates,
The initial rates from watcrfraccd WC1lSmeet or exceed
expectations. Watcrfracs provide a significant reduction in
costs when
compared
to conventional
treat mcnts.
Unfortunately, only time will ansucr the question concurring
the effects on long term production pcrform,ance. There is still
much to be learned about watcrfracs. Current fracture designs
are more of an art than a science, Job sizes ,and pump rates
have been dctcrmincd mostly by trial and error. Today
watcrfracs are the normal completion procedure for the

- A PERSPECTIVE

FROM SEVERAL OPERATORS

Pennzoil ArkLaTex Business Unit. They provided the step

change reduction in completion costs necessary for Pemzoil
to continue developing reserves in areas formerly thought to
be uneconomical, Thejury may still be out, but Pcrmzoil plans
to continue the use of waterfracs in East Texas and is
exploring opportunities in other areas.
Operator

Perspectives

- Amoco

Amoco first learned of the waterfrac technique from

discussions with UPR in early 1997. Amoco takes pride in
their history of developing fracturing technology in the East
Texas Cotton Valley and this technique was initially viewed
with some skepticism. However, the lure of reducing
fracturing costs by 60?40 and the potential to develop
previously uneconomic areas was enough to give the
technique a try.
To verify the cost savings associated with watcrfracs
quoted in the UPRS SPE 38611 Proppants, We Dont Need
No Proppants, an analysis of the costs for a comparable sized
gcl frac and watcrfrac design was performed. The variable
used to compare size between the designs was clean fluid
volume. Both jobs were designed for 10,000 bbls of clean
fluid. The conventional gel frac utilized 1,000,000 lbs of 20/40
sand in the design. The watcrfrac design resulted in only
168,000 lbs of sand. The prim,ary areas of cost savings in the
\vaterfrac design were 1) elimination of materials and
chemicals related to the cross Iinkcd gcl system i.e. gel
concentrate, crosslinker, breaker etc. and 2) rcduccd volume of
sand, reduced number of Sand bins and reduced costs of
hauling sand. overall, the watcrfrac cost was only 40% of the
cost of a conventional gel frac.
Amocos first test of the waterfmc technique was in a
Carthage well that had been initially completed only in the
Taylor Sand of the Cotton Valley Formation. A workover
isolated the Taylor Sand and performed a three-stage fracture
stimulation in the Upper Cotton Valley (UCV) Sands using the
watcrfrac technique. This repair resulted in an average
production rate of 1150 MCFD from only the UCV interval
during the first month following the workover. The well has
been on production now for 6 months as of the writing of this
paper ,and has recovered 150 hfMCF (see Figure 4). This
rcstdt was better than expected and encouraged Amoco to
pursue additional candidates for stimulation using the
\vatcrfrac technique.
Amoco began a selective infll program in November 1997
in five different Cotton Valley Fields. Production profiles
from offset convcntiorudly fraced wells were analyzed to
forecast the rate profiles for the intlll wells. It was recognized
in the evaluation that the quality of the wells decreases with
each round of inllll drilling. Six pilot wells were drilled in the
Blocker Field to test the itilll potential. An average iniill rate
profile for the drilling area was generated after analyzing the
rate profiles from all existing producers. The actual production
rates and the projected profile are plotted in Figure 5, This
chart illustrates that on average the early performance is on
track with projections based on conventionally fraccd offset
WCIIS.These results from Blocker, although still very eariy,
are encouraging and provide fimher evidence that waterfracs
do perform equally as WCI1as conventional gel fracs. Early
499

WALKER, HUNTER,

BRAKE, FAGIN, STEINSBERGER

wells A and B is given in Figures 6, 7, and 8. Extended testing

of this waterfrac was not performed to allow for the addition
of UCV intervals. The waterfrac in well B met the expectation
of a strong early response as well as established gas
production which at that time, well A had not done. The cost
reduction benefit of the waterfrac was seen immediately for
well B as Valence was able to reduce substantially the amount
of resin coated proppang increase the job size by 280A, and
still lower stimulation costs by $70,000.
Based upon the experience in well B, three subsequent
waterfracs were performed, with acceptable results and the
same significant treatment cost reductions, Two of these jobs
were performed in the LCV, and one in the UCV. The two
LCV jobs screened out. One screened out at 60?40of job design
and the other at 71Aof job design. In the first four jobs, three
had screened out. However, due to the usual screen out
percentages for these intervals with conventional crosslinked
gel treatments, these waterfrac screen outs were not seen as
highly unusual.
For the fifth waterfmc, performed in well C, Valence had
another company operated well, well D, hvo miles away with
similar productive intervals to serve as a comparison. Each
well had been fractured in the Lower Travis Peak interval with
conventional crosslinked gel treatments, and each had
responded as anticipated. WeIl D had also been frachlred in
the Upper Travis Peak interval with a conventional
crosslinkcd gel treatment consisting of 360,000 pounds of
proppant in 140,000 gallons of fluid. All three of these
crosslinked gel treatments had been performed prior to the
companys first waterfrac. The flow back of the Upper Travis
Peak treatment in WC1lD was disappointing with low pressure,
very low liquid rates, and no gas initially. Due to the partially
depleted nature of the Upper Travis Peak in this are% Valence
felt that the reservoir was unable to adequately clean up the
gel from the conventional treatment. As is hypothesized in
SPE 38611, waterfracs clean up better, especially in pressure
depleted environments. Therefore, well C was treated with a
watcrfrac consisting of 82,000 pounds of proppant in 180,000
gallons of fluid and flowed back strongly. Valence reatized
$30,000 in savings even though a 28?X0larger job was
performed. Long term production characteristics will be
observed in wells C and D because no other completions have
been made in either of the wells. The waterfraced wells
production is superior to the conventionally fractured well,
and its production is as good as the average well in the
immediate area. Production chta for the first six months for
these two wells is shown in Figure 9.
In six months following the first five waterfracs, se~renteen
additional waterfracs have been performed in the western side
of the East Texas Basin, each with acceptable results,
However, the one Pcttit waterfrac performed by Valence in
this group has resulted in rnargirudly acceptable production.
Valence has accepted this result since t.here is some question
as to the quality of the Pettit formation in the WCI1.In twentytwo treatments, none have required coiled tubing clean outs.
Scrccn outs have become much less prominent as the
treatments have moved into the UCV and Tmvis Peak
intcnals. Production rates appear to indicate that the
conductivity created by the waterfrac is adequate to handle

results from twelve additional wells stimulated with waterfracs

in the Carthage, Woodlaw% Oak Hill, and Glenwood Fields
also indicate that results either meet or exceed expectations.
Amocos early results from waterfraced wells compare
with rate profiles generated from conventionally fraced wells.
These results are achievable at a 60% lower fracturing cost.
Amoco has cotildence in the waterfrac technique and current
plans are to use this technique exclusively in our ongoing
Cotton Valley intlll-drilling program.
Why do waterfracs work? Most at Amoco believe that
waterfmcs work because they clean up more completely than
conventional gel fracs creating a similar effective frac length.
Whatever the reason, the cost savings associated with
waterfracs certainly justi~ continuing to use this technique.
Other business units within Amoco are currently examining
the technique. The industry is in the early stages of
understanding and optimizing waterfracs in the East Texas
Cotton Valley. Further empirical testing and technical analysis
will almost certainly result in increased performance and
additional cost savings in the future.
Operator

Perspectives

SPE 49106

- Valence Operating

In the pas~ Valence Operating believed that designed fracture

conductivity generally exceeded formation deliverability. The
role of gel damage in well productivity was also an issue that
caused Valence to heavily utilize breakers in conventional
crosslinked gel fracture treatments. Because of these two facts,
Valence was intrigued with the idea of waterfmcing as
presented in SPE 38611, Proppants? We Dont Need No
Proppants. To enhance understanding of the treatment
technique, Valence consulted with Pinnacle Technologies.
Waterfracing technology had not been applied in the area of
Valences primary operations causing the company to be
unsure of its applicability to the reservoirs. However, due to
the large treatment cost savings, Valence decided that a
waterfrac should be attempted.
Valence had just completed the drilling of two 11000
Cotton Valley Sand/Travis Peak wells. With the applicability
of the waterfrac technique still in doubt, Valence chose to
fracture the Lower Cotton Valley (LCV) in the first well, WC1l
& with a conventional crosslinked gel treatment consisting of
352,000 pounds of proppant in 201,000 gallons of fluid. The
results of this treatment were very poor, Well A produced
back the treatment fluid with no pressure, at very low rates,
and with no gas, In addition, to obtain this flow, an expensive
coiled tubing clean out was required. Although Valence felt
that this interval would produce sotne gas after sufficient
recovery of the treatment flui~ a waterfrac treatment was
planned for the same interval in well B, a 1200 offset.
Modest goals were set for the first waterfrac. Well B had to
only flow back from the treatment with superior rates and
pressures than that of well A.
Well B was treated with 43,000 pounds of proppant in
258,000 gallons of fluid and screened out at 80% of job
design. A .sufIicient amount of the treatment had been
accomplished to adequately evaluate the watcrfrac. Flow back
was at high rates and pressures, and gas production began
within six hours. A short testing period followed in ~vhich the
wells production continued to improve. Flow back data for
500

SPE 49<Q6

FROPPANTS, WE STILL DONT NEED NO PROPPANTS

each reservoirs long term production capability.

The waterfkac technique has yielded equally productive
wells for a lower cost than conventionally fractured WCIIS.Due
to the fact that the waterfrac has superior flow back
characteristics, expensive coiled tubing clean out jobs have not
been required as is occasionally the case on conventional
treatments. Valences stimulation costs have been reduced in
excess of $900,000 over a seven month period. The
applicability of the watefiac technique has been broadened to
a group of Valences wells in the western side of the East
Texas Basin. These wells are outside of the main area of
experience for the waterfrac as developed by UPR. In the case
of wells A and B, the waterfrac has made possible the
development of reserves that most likely would have been
passed over if the poor flow back performance of well A was
the best to be expected.
It should be noted that some of Valences waterfracs were
economically unsuccessful due to excessive water production.
However, the production rates of water and gas in these wells
indicated adequate conductivity thereby not discouraging the
continued use of the waterfracing technique. Additionally, the
utilization of the watcrfrac technique in limestone formations
such as the Pcttit and Cotton Valley Lime needs furlhcr study
as the success of Valences only limestone treatment is
questionable.
Lastly, few direct offset comparisons were available to
analyze. General comparisons of productivity have been made
in most cases. A1though this general type of comparison is not
as accurate as direct offset comparisons to evaluate the
waterfrac, it may be the most effective method of comparing
wells in this area. Even though the current data indicates the
applicability of the waterfrac, additional treatments and
continued production comparisons should bc performed.

- A PERSPECTIVE

FROM SEVERAL OPERATORS

Conclusions:
The following conclusions are submitted:

1.

2.

3.

4.
5.

6.

The waterfrac technique is now an accepted and

successful fracturing technique in several tight gas
reservoirs in East Texas.
Operators are utilizing the technique successfully in areas
outside of East Texas in reservoirs exhibiting
substantially different characteristics.
Further anaIysis is needed to understand why the
works.
Specifically,
failure
waterfrac
technique
mechanisms, retained fracture conductivity, cleanup,
proppant bridging, and fracture growth characteristics
must be studied fiuther.
Substantial cost reductions can be achieved by applying
the waterfmc technique.
Further analysis of performance results in differing
reservoirs is necessary to validate results and better define
application parameters.
Cooperation and sharing of data and experiences can
provide quicker and more complete understanding of new
techniques and processes. Operators can then benefit by
adapting these technologies much quicker.

References

1. Bandis, S.C., Lumsde% A.C., and Barton, N.R.:

Fundamentals of Rock Joint Deformation, lnt. J Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. VOL 20, No. 6, pp. 249-268,
1983.
2. Zimmerm~
R.W., Cheu D.W., Long J.C.S., and Cook,
N. G.W.: Hydromechanical Coupling Between Stress,
StilTness, and Hydraulic Conductivity of Rock Joints and
Frachlres, Rock Joints, Barton & Stephansson (eds),
Balkem& Rotterdam ISBN 9061911095, p. 571.
3. Hopkins, D.L., Cook, N, G.W., and Myer, L.R.: Normal
Joint Stiffness as a Function of Spatial Geometry and Surface
Roughness, Rock Joints, Barton & Stcphansson (eds),
Balkem% Rotterdarnj pp. 203-210.
4. Bar-tom N.R., Bandis, S.C., and Bakhtar, K.: Strength
Deformation and Conductivity Coupling of Rock Joints, M.
J.Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.
121-140, 1985.
7. Meehan, D. N.: Practical and Reservoir Aspects of
Austin
Chalk Stimulations, SPE 24783, presented at the 1992 Fall
SPE Meeting in Washington, D. C. ,May, 1995 SPE Prod.
Eng.
6. Meehan, D.N. and Pennington B.F.: Numerical
Simulation Results in the Carthage Cotton Valley Field,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, 34 (9838):189-198,
(January 1982).
7, Olsson, W.A., and Browrn, S.R.: Hydromechanical
Response of a Fracture Undergoing Compression and Shear,
Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 30, No. 7, pp. 845851, 1993.
8. Brown, S.R: Transport of Fluid and Electric Current
Through a Single Fracture, JG~ Vol. 94, pp. 9429-9438.,

Operator Perspectives - Mitchell Energy

The Barnett Shale, a low permeability source-rock rcser-voir

interpreted to be naturally fractured, is a much different

reservoir than where the watcrfrac technology has previously
been attempted. Mitchcll Energy Corporation has a
development program in Wise and Dcnton counties north of
Fort Worth and has completed over 250 Bamctt Shale wells
utilizing hydraulic fracture treatments for the 300 pay interval,
In a continuing effort to reduce completion costs, the
waterfracs were implemented.
Over the past twelve months, several watcrfracs have been
successfully pumped in the Barnett Shale. These designs
consist of the same volume of fluid (water with a clay
stabilizer and friction reducer) and 10/0 of the propp,ant
volume as is normally pumped in the conventional jobs.
Where the conventional fracture treatments required 80%0of
the job to be pumped at 3 ppg sand, the watcrfracs are being
pumped with less than Yi ppg sand for about 60% of the
treatment. It is important for the success of these stimulations
to have fracture half-lengths equivalent to the conventional
treatments. The decrease in chemicals and sand has lead to
savings of 60%of fracturing costs.
Mitchell Energy is cautiously optimistic with the results
thus far and intends to pursue this cost savings technique in
the development of this ticld.
501

WALKER, HUNTER,

BRAKE, FAGIN, STEINSBERGER

SPE 49106

July, 1989.

9.Branag~ P.T., Warpinski, N.R., Engler, B., and Wilmer,

R: Measuring the Hydraulic Fracture-Induced Deformation
of Reservoirs and Adjacent Rocks Employing a Deeply Buried
Inclinometer array: GRVDOE Mult-Site Project, paper SPE
6451 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference
held in Denver, 6-9 Oct. 1996.
IO. MakuraL A., and GutierreZ M.: Fracture Flow and
Fracture Cross Flow Experiments, paper SPE 36732
presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference held
in Denver, 6-9 Oct. 1996.
11. Warpinski, N.R., and Teufel, L.W.: Influence of Geologic
Discontinuities on Hydraulic Fracture Propagation, JPT, Feb.
1987, pp. 209-220.
12. Stimlab - Protmant Consortium. 1996.
13. Mayerhoffe~,- M.J., Richardson, M.F., Walker, R.N.,
Meehan, D.N., Ochler, M.W., Browning, R.R.: Proppants?
We Dont Need No Proppants, paper SPE 38611 presented at
the 1997 SPE Annual Teclmical Conference held in San
Antonio, 5-8, Oct.
14. Walker, R. N.: Cotton Valley Hydraulic Fracture Imaging
Project, paper SPE 38577 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference held in San Antonio, 5-8, Oct.
15. Warpinski, N.R., BranagW P.T., Peterso~ R.E., Fi.y I.E.,
Uhl, J.E., Engler, B.P., Wihner, R.; Microscismic and
Deformation Imaging of Hydraulic-Fracture GroWh and
Geometry in the C S,and Interval, GRUDOE hi-Site Project,
paper SPE 38573 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical
Conference held in San Antonio, 5-8, Oct.
16. Branagan, P.T., Warpinski, N.R., Peterso~ R.E., Hill,
RE., Wolhart, S.L.; Propagation of a Hydrar.dic Fracture Into
a Remote Observation Wellbore: Results of C Sand
Experimentation at the GRI/DOE M-Site Project, paper SPE
38574 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical
Conference held in San Antonio, 5-8, Oct.

Figure 1
Waterfrac

18001

vs. Conventional

1600
1400

400
i

---

I
I

,.

13579
Month

11
13
15
17
1 = Jan -96 (mos)

19

2f

Figure 1: Early comparison of waterfrac versus

conventional offset conmletion

Figure
I

. . . ...........==
1500 , .....VYATERFRA C.VS. Cmwenfi.onal

0
1

61

121

181

241

DAYS

F]gure 2, Pennzoil Comparison of watcrfrac results with

offset conventional treatments

502

23

PROPPANTS,

SF% 49106

WE STILL DONT NEED NO PROPPANTS

- A PERSPECTIVE

FROM SEVERAL OPERATORS

._.
.-,...__

Figure
WATERFRAC

Figure 6

VS BORATE

Fluid Recovery Rates

I
I

-+~

I
I
Waterfrac
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
. .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~1

~
I
60

40

20

Hours After Job Completion

l
I

%Vell B-Water

Well A-Conv _

I
1

s..

-.

61

41

21

Figure 6: Valence Operating early fluid flowback

comparison.

DAYS

Figure 3, Pennzoil comparison of waterfrac results with oflkct

conventional borate treatment.

Figure 4

Figure 7

Carthage Field Watcrfraced

\TclI

Flowing

3000 ,,

Wellhead

Pressure
I

UCV Waterfrac

-T

60

40

20

Hours After Job Completion

~Well

Date

A-Conv

IWell B-Water

Figure 7: Valence Operating early flowback comparison

of flnwin~

wellhearl

nresslmes

Fizurc 4, Amoco illustration of UCV re-completion with

w~terfrac technique.

Figure 5

Figure 8

Blocker Field Pcrformnce

Gas Production
600

2KI0

z
u
o
~

2030

31)1)

$
/
n

iSoo

5
~

,200

L%

o L+
0

20
Hours

500

40

60

After Job Corqistion

Well A-Conv

IWellEwer

0
0

Months

...

Figure 5, Amoco Blocker Field illustration of 6 waterfraccd

wells on track with expcctcd gcl frac profile at 60/0lower
stimulation costs.

503

Figure 8: Valence Operating early flowback

comparison of gas production.

-.

WALKER, HUNTER,

BRAKE, FAGIN, STEINSBERGER

Figure 9
Production

Rates

Months

lWell C-Water _well

D.conv

.-

l?igure 9: Valence Operating comparison of production

rates for first 6 months of t)roduction.

504

SPE 49106