Utilizing Technology to Optimize

Completions in the Eagle Ford Shale

Mo Cordes
Vice President Marketing & Technology
Schlumberger

© 2008 Schlumberger. All rights reserved.

An asterisk is used throughout this presentation to denote a mark of Schlumberger.

Other company, product, and service names are the properties of their respective owners.
Agenda

 Introduction
 Role played by Technology
– Reservoir Quality
– Completion Quality
 Optimizing completion design
– Case Studies
 Doing it all more efficiently
 What is the right model for success?

2
10/6/2010
Eagle Ford Shale
 Eagle Ford name derived from an important
early crossing (1844) of the west fork of the
Trinity River near Dallas.
 Three distinct hydrocarbon windows.
 World Class Source rock.
– Sourced the Austin Chalk fields of S TX
and the famous E TX Woodbine field.
 Atypical unconventional shale. San Marcos Arch
– Flows oil and gas without fracing.
– Has produced for years from vertical wells
with acid treatments. Karnes Trough

 Fracturing and faulting key to productivity

(presence or absence of migration paths). 38 mi
Eagle Ford Production Vintage (207 Wells)
2,000
2,000

1,800
1,800 Max Month Rates
Gas:10,067 mcfpd
1,600
1,600 Oil: 1,144 bopd
bbl/d

1,400
bbl/d

1,400
BOE,
Average BOE,

1,200
1,200
Horizontal
MonthAverage

Horizontal
1,000
1,000 Vertical
Vertical
Horizontal Max Month
800 Average
Month

800
~ 587 BOE/d
Max

600
600
Max

400
400

200
200

00
1958 1961
1958 1961 1964
1964 1967
1967 1970
1970 1973
1973 1976
1976 1979
1979 1982
1982 1985
1985 1988
1988 1991
1991 1994
1994 1997
1997 2000
2000 2003
2003 2006
2006 2009
2009
Year
Year
Source: IHS updated Sept 2010 1 BOE = 6 Mscf
Production is Not Uniform
14.0% 12.0% 8.0%

12.0%
30% 38% 32%
10.0%

6.0%
10.0%
8.0%
Production Percentage

Production Percentage

Production Percentage
8.0%
6.0% 4.0%
6.0%

4.0%
4.0%
2.0%

2.0%
2.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33

Perforation Clusters Perforation Clusters Perforation Clusters

8.0% 10.0%

43% 43%
6.0%
Eagle Ford Production Log Examples 8.0%
Production Percentage

Production Percentage
 21% of the Perforation Cluster are 6.0%

“Not Contributing”.
4.0%

4.0%

2.0%
 30% to 43% of the Perforation 2.0%

Clusters are contributing less than

1% of total production.
0.0% 0.0%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37

Perforation Clusters Perforation Clusters

Controls for Reservoir Productivity
Defining Reservoir Quality
 Hydrocarbon In Place
 Fluid Properties - PVT
 Permeability/Porosity/Natural Fractures
 TOC and Maturation.
 Pore Pressure.

Defining Completion Quality

 Fracture Containment (anisotropy, in-situ stress).
 Rock mechanics (surface area per reservoir volume).
 Ability to retain surface area.
 Fracture conductivity.
 Fluid sensitivity.

Good Reservoir Quality + Good Completion Quality = Economic Success

 Understanding the Reservoir

156 ECS* & EcoScope* (Elemental Capture Spectroscopy)

 Mineral Content.
Reservoir Quality

 Porosity/Permeability/Saturation.
 Total Organic Carbon (TOC).
 Gas in place (absorbed and interstitial).

43 Image Logs
 Fracture intensity and orientation.
Dip and bedding.
Completion Quality


 Faulting.

66 Sonic Scanner* & SonicVISION* logs

 Stress Orientation.
 Mechanical properties/Fracture Containment.
Woodford Barnett Fayetteville Haynesville Marcellus Eagle Ford Eagle Ford (oil)

Most calcareous shale

Variable swelling clays
Thickness is highly variable
Rock quality is highly variable
Technology Aids Well Placement
/Neu
Image
Porosity
Den GR

G H I H G F E D C B A B CD E F G H I
Den Image
Ray Resistivity
Dynamic
Image
Gamma
Static
Den

Formation Dips Planned Trajectory

from Images

Actual Trajectory
Images Can Identify Fractures

Ÿ
Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ ŸŸ
ŸŸŸŸŸŸ Ÿ ŸŸ
Putting it All Together

Den Image

HC in Place
Reservoir
TOC
Quality
Porosity /
Saturations
Reservoir, Pay

Volumetric

Spectroscopy

Completion Frac gradient

Quality Rock Strength

Integrated Perforation Optimization

Spectroscopy
Volumes

 Examine Reservoir and

Completion Quality.
Effective
 Recommend stages with Porosity

similar properties. Variable Shale Stress

number and lengths. Index

Poisson’s
 Recommend specific Ratio
perforation location.
Stress

Perforations
Completion Optimization

Geometric Spacing: 15 stages based on fixed depth intervals.

Integrated Perforation Advisor: 13 stages based formation properties.

CQ

RQ

Cut out two stages from initial design (Saving > $400K)
Completion Optimization – Microseismic Monitoring

 Optimized Perforation selection. Map View

 Fracture design based on
Reservoir and Completion
Quality.
 Top producing well in area.

Transverse View
Eagle Ford Well Placement and Completion Optimization
 33% increase in 3 month average cumulative BOE on new wells.
 New wells used RQ and CQ to optimize completions.
50000

40000
3 Month BOE

30000

20000

10000

0
Pre Optimization (6 Wells) Post Optimization (3 Wells)
Mapping RQ and CQ Sweet Spots

Good Reservoir Quality + Good Completion Quality = Economic Success

Drilling Efficiency – Eagle Ford
Build + Lateral Days vs. Normalized Depth Lateral Only Days vs. Normalized Depth

-1 2 5 8 11 14 17 0 1 2 3 4 5
PowerDrive –Archer* 5000 7500

6000 8000
BHA 1
Vertical 8500
KOP* 7000
Increased Vertical Portion

9000
8000
9500
9000
10000
10000 #1 #2
#6 10500
11000 #3
KOP
11000 #1
#4 #2
12000 #4 #3
11500
#1 #2 #3 #4 #6 #1 #2 #3 #4

High angle RSS

Landing Landing* RSS & LWD

Increased Reservoir Exposure

Completion Efficiency
 Horizontal TAP* system is run as part of casing.
 12 stage Horizontal Granite Wash well.
 Frac treatment pumped thru all four TAP valves.
– 150K lbs of Proppant.
– 80 BPM, Slickwater at 0.2 to 2 PPA.
 Result 4 stages stimulated in 10 hrs.

100% Efficiency Gain!

Saving One Day Full Frac Crew on Location

What is the right model for success?
Model 1… Model 2…

 Minimum data utilized.  Collect optimum data.

 Accept statistical variation in well performance.  Understand the reservoir and completion quality.
 Compensate by drilling more wells.  Reservoir based well placement.
 Factory approach to drilling and completion.  Utilize technology to improve drilling and completion efficiency.
 Large footprint – high rates & large fluid volumes.  Reduced equipment footprint and fluid volumes. deploy capital
judiciously.
Good Reservoir Quality + Good Completion Quality = Economic Success
Utilizing Technology to Optimize
Completions in the Eagle Ford Shale
Mo Cordes
Vice President Marketing & Technology
Schlumberger

© 2008 Schlumberger. All rights reserved.

An asterisk is used throughout this presentation to denote a mark of Schlumberger.

Other company, product, and service names are the properties of their respective owners.