SPE 144032

A Novel Screening Method for Selection of Horizontal Refracturing

Candidates in Shale Gas Reservoirs
Shekhar Sinha and Hariharan Ramakrishnan, Schlumberger

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 1416 June 2011.
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
A novel method to rapidly screen potential horizontal refracturing candidates utilizing production performance and
completion data analysis is presented. Candidate selection methods based solely on production comparison analysis are not
very effective (Reeves, 2000). Integration of initial hydraulic fracture completion details augments the process and helps in
screening understimulated wells in different production classes. To accomplish this, a new index called a completion index
is defined after analysis of the completion parameters, production behavior and their inter-relationship. Typically, a
completion index will be based on the well completion and stimulation job parameters, such as completion type, fluid
volume, proppant volume, completed interval length, number of stages etc. The production index is a time normalized
production indicator representative of longer-term production or expected ultimate recovery. A crossplot of production
indicators and the completion index is used in the initial screening of potential candidates.
This method enables fast and efficient screening of wells with a below- average completion index and similar production
index from thousands of wells. The screened candidates can then be taken to a higher tier of analysis that integrates the
production performance and completion information with available petro-physical data and geological information. A
reservoir quality indicator along the horizontal laterals can be extracted from the reservoir model and analyzed with
completion index to better understand the production drivers.
Based on the data sets studied from Barnett shale areas it was possible to rapidly shortlist 1520% of the wells from a large
well population for further detailed analysis. Wells with an average and higher production index with below average
completion index proved to be better candidates in terms of economic payout.
Introduction
Restimulation of existing wells represents a vast unexploited resource in tight formations. In 1996, Gas Research Institute
(GRI), now Gas Technology Institute (GTI), investigated the potential for natural gas production enhancement via
restimulation in the United States (lower 48 onshore) (Reeves, 1996 and Hill, 1998). The report indicated that the potential
was substantial (over one Tcf of reserves in five years), particularly in the tight gas sands of the Rocky Mountain, MidContinent and South Texas regions. The study also stated that 85% of the restimulation potential for a field exists in 15% of
the wells. Hence the key to any successful restimulation program is being able to identify that 1520% of the total well
population that represents high potential for restimulation success. However, it was also determined that industrys current
experience with restimulation is mixed, and that considerable effort is required in candidate selection, problem diagnosis and
treatment design/implementation for a program to be successful. Early days of restimulation campaigns focused on
underperforming wells based on relative performance in the field yielded disappointing results, and also led to
misconceptions that restimulations dont work. Following the GTI study and some successful restimulation programs,
different perspective emerged, better wells in a field often have the highest restimulation potential (Reese, 1994; Reeves,
2000; Sencenbaugh, 2001). The GTI study investigated three main classes of selection methodologies for candidate selection
(Reeves, 1999; Reeves, 2000): Production performance comparisons, Pattern recognition technology/virtual intelligence
methods and Production type curve matching. Conclusion from the study was that, although virtual-intelligence methods
were relatively better compared to production type curves, no single methodology currently exists to universally select
restimulation candidates across different geologic settings. Using production statistics alone was the least effective process.

SPE 144032

Most of the published works mentioned above are in reference to vertical wells in layered formations in tight sand reservoirs.
Although the same candidate selection methods can be extended to horizontal wells in shale gas reservoirs, there are
limitations. The production type curve matching method is typically not applicable in shale gas setting, because of variability
in complex fracture networks from well to well and lack of diagnosis tools for quantifying the fracture characteristics for
analytical analysis. Pattern recognition or virtual intelligence methods run into limitations mainly due to amount, type, and
quality of data available for robust analysis (Reeves, 1999). Ideally, an adequate and complete data set (including both
completion and reservoir/geology data) quantifying cases of successful horizontal refracturing in shale should be available to
train the virtual intelligence tools. Pattern recognition tools use artificial neural nets (ANN) to extract the set of optimum
completion parameters that will most likely translate to good production performance and the degree of departure from the
optimum parameters is translated as a proxy for restimulation potential. The advantage of various virtual intelligence
techniques is that it can be designed to mimic the thinking process of a completion engineer entrusted with the job of
selecting refracturing candidates, but the downside is data requirement and expertise (Reeves, 1999). It requires some
judgment in conditioning of data to utilize in the various processes, and outcome could be compromised by lack of some
important information such as reservoir properties. Selection based solely on production data will have the same limitations
faced earlier in tight sands, although production data is a critical input requirement for the other two methods. Hence there is
a need for specific methodologies for refracturing candidate selection in shale reservoirs.
Rationale behind refracturing and candidate selection
The rationale behind refracturing is to increase the stimulated reservoir volume over and above the volume achieved in the
initial fracturing. When a new volume of shale is exposed in a refrac, stimulated reservoir volume is enlarged, resulting in a
gain in reserves (Warpinski, 2008). A potential refracturing candidate is one that is not performing up to its productive
potential as governed by the in-situ reservoir characteristics despite initial hydraulic fracturing. Therefore, to identify
potential candidates, we need to separate the reservoir characteristics from the hydraulic fracture characteristics. Generally
speaking, underperformance of shale wells can be caused by the following.
Inefficient initial completion: Any problems or inefficiency in the initial completion job would result in less-than-desirable
fracture network area contributing to flow. Poor design (inadequate fluid volumes, inadequate or inappropriate proppant
selection, damaging fluid etc.), attempts to treat too-long a lateral with fewer stages, and operational issues like treatment
screenout are some examples resulting in non-optimal initial completion. Figure 1 conceptually illustrates an often realized
completion compared to an optimized completion. Micro-seismic monitoring can reveal actual location and realized
completion coverage. With continued advances in hydraulic fracture modeling and simulation in shale reservoir (Cipolla,
2010), effective fracture characteristics honoring the completion job data and subsequent production/pressure data can be
estimated.

Fig 1: Completion and fracture optimization (taken from Global Unconventional Gas It is there, but is it Profitable?
Holditch, S, A. and Madani, H., JPT December 2010)

SPE 144032

Inefficient well placement: Inefficient well orientation based on in-situ stress field, insufficient lateral landing in the sweet
zone, etc., are examples of inefficient well placement (Baihly, 2010). Sweet zone in shale reservoirs refers to the most
productive area in the reservoir defined by organic richness, high gas porosity, natural fractures, etc. In tight shale rocks,
wells must be placed in proximity of sweet zones, such that hydraulic fractures initiated from the wellbore connect the sweet
zones and get adequately propped.

Sweet Zone
Sweet Zone

Fig 2: Schematic of inefficient well placement leading to sub-optimal productivities

Integrated earth models capturing structural and petrophysical variation in the reservoir show the impact of well placement on
production (Baihly, 2010). Proper well placement maximizes the return on costs incurred in well completion.
Gradual damage during production: Deterioration of fracture conductivity due to proppant pack degradation, scale build-up,
flow-back issues etc., leads to gradual production deterioration.
Pressure depletion: Well interference due to natural or hydraulic fracture network, closely spaced infill wells can lead to
reduced productivity on subsequent wells. In Barnett, infill wells at lateral spacing of 250 ft are being drilled.
A refracturing candidate identification workflow should honor both, the production potential of the reservoir rock and the
major causes of underperformance of shale wells related to drilling, completion and production.
The method presented in the paper has two tiers. The first tier is purely statistical short-listing of candidates using both
production performance comparisons and initial completion job details. The second tier is model based, which integrates the
first tier of statistical analysis with available petro-physical data and geological information.
Success of a refracturing after good candidate selection also hinges on optimized refracturing design and successful
operational execution. Micro-seismic imaging during the operation and real-time fluid diversion techniques are key enabling
technologies in executing a successful refracture design (Waters, 2009; Potapenko, 2009).
Components of Candidate Selection Workflow
Data Requirements
All production and completion data for demonstration of the candidate selection approach is taken from public domain,
namely IHS (www.ihs.com) and Drillinginfo (www.drillinginfo.com). The data from these sources can be imported into any
database application or spreadsheet programs to perform the analysis. Monthly oil, gas and water production data is available
from these sources as reported to the regulatory agencies. Reported completion data quality in the public domain is
sometimes inconsistent and requires stringent quality checks before proceeding for analysis. Typical reported completion
data from the Barnett includes completion type (casing/cementing information), fluid type, volume of frac-fluid pumped
(volume of acid and frac water), length of perforated stages, number of stages, and amount of proppant pumped (with mesh
sizes).
The available completion data gives an idea of the size of the job and is used to compute a completion index for relative
comparison. Monthly production data is used to compute production indicators. A suitable production indicator based on
length of the production history of the well population is used for comparison.

SPE 144032

Production Indicators, Completion Indicators and Reservoir Quality Indicators

First tier of data analysis is purely statistical and uses production indicators and completion indicators derived from initial
completion job details. This step reduces the number of potential candidates to be carried over to second tier analysis. First
tier of data analysis will give similar results to Pattern Recognition methods summarized earlier.
Production Indicators: Time normalized production indicators are often used for comparing well productions. Initial
production (Mscf/d), Best/Max month production (Mscf), First 12-month gas production (Mscf), Best of moving average of
consecutive 12-month production (Best-12) are examples of such indicators. The production indicator used should be
representative of long-term production behavior. Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) would be the best production indicator
but for horizontal wells in shale reservoirs. EURs are often subjective and change as more production data becomes
available because of prolonged linear flow behavior and absence of boundary dominated flow in the available production
history. Often First 12-month gas production or Best-12 gas production is well correlated to longer-term production (5-year
or 10-year cumulative production) and can be used as proxy for long term production. Figure 3 shows correlation between
Best-12 gas and 5-year cumulative from a tight gas field. Wells falling off the trend line indicates wells that had good initial
production but for which longer-term recovery was poor. This is often caused by gradual damage during production or
limited gas in place.
4,000,000

R-Square: 0.881
Slope: 35.2658
Y-Intercept: -39,058.61
Confidence Slope is Non-Zero: 1.00

5-Year Cumulative Production, Mcf

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0
0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Average Production During the Best Year, Mcf/month

Figure 3: Correlation between short term production

indicator and long-term production

Figure 4: Specialized square root of time plot (Figure

from Villagran 2001 (SPE 71516)

Other than production statistics based performance indicators, production indicators can be derived from production
diagnostics plots, such as specialized square root time plots. Figure 4 shows normalized rate inverse data and cumulative gas
production with square root time. Normalized rate inverse data shows linear behavior until the end of linear flow period. The
cumulative data also shows a linear behavior although it is less sensitive to flow regime change. The linear slope of
cumulative production would be indicative of longer-term production and could also be used as a production indicator. For
horizontal wells, these indicators could be further divided by the lateral length to get a measure of productivity per unit length
of the lateral.
Completion Indicators: Evolution of completion practices in shale reservoirs has had a significant impact on production
performance. Many of the early foam and gel completions in Barnett has been restimulated with slickwater which has
become the standard now. Large slickwater completions have been shown to develop very large and complex fracture
network systems resulting in superior production compared to other fluid types. Augmenting production data analysis with
completion data not only makes the candidate selection process more robust but provides valuable insights by identifying
patterns of completion practices and its effect on production performance.
Much of the data analysis described in this paper will be presented as conventional crossplots. Many authors (Shelley et al.,
2008) have analyzed production and completion data from Barnett areas and reported very poor correlation between
production and any individual completion variable. We also observe huge data scatter on the plots, especially if all the wells
are pooled together without any filtering. It will be shown below that trends of the correlation are usually apparent with most
dominant variables when wells are grouped in similar classes and scatter is compressed by using semi-log plots.
Additionally, the objective of crossplots is not to derive the correlation coefficient but to merely use it as a candidate-well
filtering tool.

SPE 144032

1000000

ProductionIndicator(Best6month)

SWFHorizontal

100000

10000

1000
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

TotalFluid(1000Gal)

Figure 6: Best 6 month vs. total fluid (200 well

horizontal slickwater only dataset from Barnett)

Figure 5: 12-month cumulative vs. total fluid (Figure

from Grieser and Shelley 2006 (SPE 100674)

Figure 5 shows no correlation between fluid volume and production even if only slickwater frac wells are included. Figure 6
shows a 200-well data set with only horizontal Barnett wells completed with slickwater fracs on a semi-log scale. There is a
clear trend between fluid volume and production despite the scatter. It was filtered from a bigger dataset of wells drilled and
completed over multiple counties. The scatter in the data is expected because fluid volume is not the only variable affecting
production.
An important trend in shale completion has been towards longer horizontal laterals. In general longer laterals can be
correlated with higher overall production but productivity of the well per unit length may suffer if other completion variables,
such as volume of fluid per stage, proppant per stage or the number of stages are not considered. Figure 7 explains this
anomaly observed in the completion practice in one Barnett area with sixty horizontal slickwater wells.

100

ProductionIndexperunitlength

ProductionIndex

100

10

AllWells

10

AllWells
<AverageGal/ft

1
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

CompletedLength(ft)

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

CompletedLength(ft)

Figure 7: Effect of completion length on production indicator

We observed that the productivity per unit length of lateral completed suffered because longer laterals in general also
received less than the average total volume of fluid per unit length (red circle). This information led to changes in completion
practices so that return on extra footage drilled could be optimized.

SPE 144032

One of the most important developments in horizontal well fracturing has been multi-stage fracturing. There has been an
evolution to a larger numbers of stages in the laterals. Staging as close as 270 ft has been seen in Barnett Shale completions.
Consistent staging data is difficult to find in the public databases, therefore only a few operators datasets were consistent
enough to be used for completion index calculation.
1000000

80

ProductionIndicator

70
60
Stage13

50

Stage46

40

Stage79

30

Stage1012

20

ProductionIndicator(Best6month)

90

100000

10000

10
0

1000
0

GroupedStages

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

Totalproppant(lbs)

Figure 8: Effect of number of stages

Figure 9: Effect of proppant volume

The crossplot of production index and number of stages showed huge scatter, possibly caused by inconsistency in data or the
effect of other completion variables. Hence, number of stages was grouped into four classes and average production in each
class was calculated. This showed a positive trend between production and number of stages (Figure 8).
The definition of a composite completion index is rooted in analysis of individual completion and stimulation job parameters
with respect to normalized production performance of the wells. In the process of analyzing individual completion variables
and their effect on production, other variables are combined when required to understand the main completion drivers for
production performance (Figure 7). After analyzing the completion data available from this 200-well dataset, the two
completion drivers with the greatest impact on production performance were total fluid volume and the number of stages. In
the dataset used, distribution of proppant concentrations was more or less uniform, so total fluid volume pumped implicitly
correlated to the total volume of proppant placed. Hence proppant volume was not considered in defining the completion
index. If it were determined that proppant concentration varied widely and had a positive correlation with production, then
that information could be incorporated in the definition of the completion index.
Depending on the shale reservoir characteristics (heterogeneity, presence of natural fractures, etc.), the correlation between
individual completion variables and production indicator will vary. Therefore the completion index for a specific shale
play has to be defined for the wells being studied in the area of interest after studying the correlation of individual
completion and stimulation parameters over production indicators. The completion index definition and calculation shown
in this document is based on the dataset used and available public completion data. Internal to an operating company, a more
complete dataset would be available and analyzed to formulate the applicable completion index.
For the given dataset the simplest completion index can be computed by combining three simple completion variables, total
volume pumped, number of stages and length of the lateral.

"Completion Index"

If only one variable shows a clear dominant correlation to production then that variable alone can be represented as the
completion index. A simple completion index could be just total volume of fluid pumped, volume of fluid per unit
length or total proppant placed. Once a completion indicator is defined, it is taken to be an indicator of overall hydraulic
fracture completion quality of the well. For an area of interest with relatively uniform reservoir rock characteristics, a
positive correlation between computed completion index and production index is expected with a less degree of scatter, but
the objective of crossplots is not to derive the correlation coefficient but to use it as a candidate well filtering tool as
explained in subsequent sections.

SPE 144032

Reservoir Quality Indicators: One of the main factors for observed scatter on correlation plots of production and
completion variable alone is the variability of reservoir rock characteristics in these reservoirs. Reservoir rock quality can be
defined by a number of properties, such as hydrocarbon-filled porosity, pore-pressure, organic content and maturation, etc.,
which relates to the hydrocarbon in-place potential. Reservoir rock quality definition can also consist of rock mechanical
properties that define the fracturability of the rock that enables creation of large fracture surface areas in the reservoir.
Grieser and Shelley (2008) show a crossplot with a shotgun scatter of production indicator and hydrocarbon pore volume
derived from well logs. They also had the same observations with porosity-feet, hydrocarbon-feet etc. These log derived
reservoir properties can be considered as reservoir quality indicators. Conventional logging on horizontal laterals in shale
reservoirs is not typical. Few logged laterals show that heterogeneity of properties along the lateral has significant impact on
the quality of the completion and production from individual stages (Waters, 2006 and Khalid, 2010). Most operators in
different shale plays drill multiple pilot wells with complete suites of logs for evaluation. These pilot logs can be integrated
with available logs in laterals, logging-while-drilling data, seismic data and geological data to build an integrated reservoir
model. The integrated reservoir model captures structural and reservoir property variations between the pilot wells by
integrating data from all sources (Figure 10). From the model, synthetic logs along the horizontal laterals can be extracted
and used as proxies for reservoir quality indicators (Figure 11). When the variability in reservoir quality is normalized, the
scatter in the observed relation between production and completion or reservoir quality tends to reduce and trends are better
noticeable.

Figure 10: 3D earth model created by integrating

seismic, log and geological data

Figure 11: Gas porosity log extracted from 3D model

along a horizontal lateral

ProductionIndex

100

10

Targetzone
>50%outoftargetzone
Linear(Targetzone)
Linear(>50%outoftargetzone)

1
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Fluidpumped

Figure 11 shows an example of an extracted synthetic log

from the model. The gas porosity values in the first half of
the lateral are much better than the later half because it is
going out of the most productive zone. When wells groups
are segregated based on the available reservoir quality
information at the lateral landing interval, better trends
emerge from the crossplots of production indicators and
completion variables. Figure 12 shows a crossplot of fluid
pumped and Production index with wells grouped by landed
interval. The well class mostly landed in the targeted
productive zone shows a positive correlation, and wells that
go out of zone, either above or below the productive zone,
show no correlation.

Figure 12: Total fluid pumped vs production indicator

To find out whether completion or reservoir quality has more

impact on production, the production index was crossplotted with the completion index and the reservoir quality index and
the correlation coefficients were compared. Figure 13 shows the crossplot with completion quality. It can be seen that wells
that are out of zone are all clustered together and have no correlation while wells landed in the target zone have much better
correlation. Figure 14 shows the crossplot with reservoir quality. In this case, the reservoir quality is porosity-foot along
the lateral, extracted from synthetic logs, described earlier.

SPE 144032

ProductionandCompletionQuality

ProductionandReservoirQuality

100

100

R=0.7187

R=0.626

ProductionIndex

ProductionIndex

R=0.4386
R=0.0007

10

OverallR2 =0.56

10

OverallR2 =0.66

Targetzone

Targetzone

>50%outofzone

>50%outofzone
Linear(Targetzone)

Linear(Targetzone)

Linear(>50%outofzone)

Linear(>50%outofzone)

1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ReservoirQualityIndex

CompletionIndex

Figure 13: Completion quality index vs production indicator

Figure 14: Reservoir quality index vs Production indicator

For the analyzed dataset, we see that correlation between Production Index and Reservoir Quality Index is stronger than that
of completion quality. Wells that are out of zone show a decent trend with Reservoir Quality Index but no trend with
completion variables. It was also noted that out of zone wells had overall poor completion quality. In general, reservoir
quality has a greater impact on production potential when compared to compeltion variables. For a uniform reservoir quality,
the production indicator would better correlate to completion variables.
Use of Completion Index in Potential Restimulation Candidate Selection
Using a Barnett area dataset of 54 wells, the utility of the completion index is demonstrated for selecting restimulation
candidates in Figure 15.
100

ProductionIndex

Quadrant 1
High PI-Low CI

Quadrant 4
High PI-High CI

10

Quadrant 3
Low PI-High CI

Quadrant 2
Low PI-Low CI

1
0

20

40

60

80

100

CompletionIndex

Figure 15: Quadrant based method for selection of re-stimulation candidates

The crossplot of Production Indicator versus Completion Index can be divided into four quadrants based on the average
Completion Index and a cut off Production Indicator. A 50 percentile cut-off for Production Index and 50 percentile cut-off
for Completion Index has been applied in this example.

SPE 144032

Numerous studies in tight gas literature have shown that better wells in a field often have the highest restimulation
potential (Sencenbaugh, 2001; Reese, 1994; Reeves, 1999, Jennings, 1991; Dozier, 2003; Moore 2006). For initial screening
of potential restimulation candidates from a large database of wells, the approach is to select wells that were possibly
understimulated during the original treatment (below average completion index) and are average to better producers.
For relatively uniform reservoir rock characteristics,
Wells with high completion index would deliver high production index and lie in Quadrant 4.
If wells are adequately stimulated they tend to be above average producers; Quadrant 3 would normally have very
few wells resulting from data scatter.
Quadrant 2 represents the wells that exhibit poor production quality but were also understimulated. These wells
could be reviewed in further detail as potential candidates but would be low priority.
Quadrant 1 receives the highest priority because these wells are expected to be in better-quality reservoir rock and
were understimulated. These wells provide the highest chance of restimulation success.
This step is only the initial candidate screening step to reduce the number of wells for detailed investigation from a large
count of wells. Further analysis is required to make the final restimulation decision.
If a reservoir model were available for the study area then the ideal restimulation candidates would be the wells that show
good reservoir quality around the wellbore and are relatively understimulated. Figure 16 shows a crossplot of earth model
derived reservoir quality index and completion index for a small data set. Reservoir quality index was defined as effective
gas porosity-foot and extracted from the reservoir model (Figure 11).

ReservoirQualityandCompletionQualityIndex
120

ReserviorQualityIndex

100

Re-Frac candidates

80

60

40

SweetZone

20

50%OutofSweetZone
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

CompletionIndex

Figure 16: Selection of refrac candidates based on reservoir quality index

Conclusion

We observed agreeing trends between dominant completion variables and production when only the wells with the
same completion practice were grouped (e.g., slickwater, cased hole). Crossplots of an individual completion
variable and production indicator show varying degrees of scatter because of heterogeneity in reservoir quality and
the effects of other completion variables.
Combining the most dominant completion variables in one composite index (completion index) provides a
simplified method of initial screening of potential restimulation candidates. Based on various data sets studied from
Barnett shale areas it was possible to rapidly shortlist 1520% of the wells from a large well population for further
detailed analysis.
Well productivity depends on both, reservoir quality and completion quality. Knowledge of reservoir quality both
vertically and along the lateral is required to optimize the completion quality in shale reservoirs.

10

SPE 144032

Integration of petro-physical and geomechanical data in a 3D reservoir model provides a powerful means for
understanding key production drivers in the area and is critical for production optimization efforts. Restimualtion
candidate selection methodology should include information about reservoir potential along the lateral wellbore.
For the analyzed dataset we observed stronger correlation between production index and reservoir quality index
compared to completion index. Correlation between production and completion index was much stronger when only
the wells where most of the lateral wellbore was landed in the targeted productive zone were separated.

References
Baihly, J.D., Malpani, R., Edwards, C., Han, S.Y., Kok, J.C.L., Tollefsen, E.M., and Wheeler, C.W. 2010. Unlocking
the Shale Mystery: How Lateral Measurements and Well Placement Impact Completions and Resultant Production. SPE
138427 presented at SPE Tight Gas Completions Conference held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 23 November.
Cipolla, C.L., Williams, M.J., Weng, X., Mack, M., and Maxwell, S. 2010. Hydraulic Fracture Monitoring to Reservoir
Simulation: Maximizing Value. SPE 133877 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Florence, Italy, 1922 September.
Dozier, G., Elbel, J., Fielder, E., Hoover, R., Lemp, S., Reeves, S., Seibrits, E., Wisler, D., and Wolhart, S. 2010.
Refracturing Works. Oil Field Review, Autumn, pg 38.
Hill, D.G. and Reeves, S. R. 1998. Restimulation Research to Target Low Cost, Incremental Gas Reserves. GasTips,
Vol. 4 No. 3, Fall.
Jennings Jr, A. R. 1991. Good Wells Make the Best Candidates for Well Stimulation. SPE Production Engineering,
1991.
Khalid, S., Faurschou, K., Gorchynski, T., Zhao, X., and Marechal, F. C. 2010. Mapping Key Reservoir Properties
Along Horizontal Shale Gas Wells. presented at Canadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum
Conference, 1921 October, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Moore, L.P., and Ramakrishnan, H. 2006. Restimulation: Candidate Selection Methodologies and Treatment
Optimization. SPE 102681 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas,
24-27 September.
Potapenko, D., Tinkham, S., Lecerf, B., Fredd, C., Samuelson, M., Gillard, M., Calvez, J.L., and Daniels, J., Barnett
Shale Re-Fracture Stimulations Using a Novel Diversion Technique. 2009. SPE 119636 presented at SPE Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology Conference, 1921 January, The Woodlands, Texas.
Reese, J.L., and Jones, J.R. 1994. Selecting Economic Refracturing Candidates. SPE 28490 presented at SPE 69th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, LA, USA, 2528 September.
Reeves, S.R. 1996. Assessment of Technology Barriers and Potential Benefits of Restimulation R & D for Natural Gas
Wells. Final Report for Gas Research Institute, GRI 96-0267, July.
Reeves, S.R., Bastian, P.A., Spivey, J.P., Flumerfelt, R.W., Mohaghegh, S., and Koperna, G.J. 2000. Benchmarking of
Restimulation Candidate Selection Techniques in Layered, Tight Gas Sand Formations Using Reservoir Simulation. SPE
63096 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 14 October.
S.R. Reeves, Hill, D.G., Hopkins, C.W., M.W. Conway, M.W., R. L. Tiner, R.L., and Mohaghegh, S. 1999.
Restimulation Technology for Tight Gas Sand Wells. SPE 56482 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 36 October.
Sencenbaugh, R.N., Lytle, D.M., Birmingham, T.J., Simmons, J.C., and Shaefer, M.T. 2001. Restimulating Tight Gas
Sand: Case Study of the Codell Formation. SPE 71045 presented at SPE Rocky Mountain Petroleum Technology
Conference in Keystone, Colorado, 2123 May.
Shelley, B., Grieser, B., Johnson, B.J., Fielder, E.O., Heinze, J.R., and Werline, J.R. 2008. Data Analysis of Barnett
Shale Completions. SPE Journal, September
Warpinski, N.R., Mayhofer, M.J., Vincent, M.C., Cipolla, C.L., and Lolon, E.P. 2008. Stimulating Unconventional
Reservoirs: Maximizing Network Growth while Optimizing Fracture Conductivity. SPE 114173 presented at the
Unconventional Reservoirs Conference, Keystone, Colorado, 1012 February.
Waters, G., Heinze, J., Jackson, R., Ketter, A., Daniels, J., and Bentley, D. 2006. Use of Horizontal Well Image Tools to
optimize Barnett Shale Reservoir Exploitation. SPE 103202 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2427 September.
Waters, G., Ramakrishnan, H., Daniels, J., and Bentley, D. 2009. Unlocking the Unconventional Oil and Gas Reservoirs:
Utilization of Real Time Microseismic Monitoring and Hydraulic Fracture Diversion Technology in the Completion of
Barnett Shale Horizontal Wells. OTC 20268 presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 4-7
May.