SPE-184812-MS

Improving Quantitative Analysis of Frac-Hits and Refracs in Unconventional

Plays Using RTA

Himanshu Yadav and Siyavash Motealleh, BP

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 24-26 January
2017.

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
One of the most common field development plans in shale plays involves drilling lease/acreage retention
wells in different areas followed by coming back and drilling infill wells. In majority of these shale plays,
job sizes for hydraulic fracturing treatment are getting bigger over time in order to achieve more volume as
well as value. However, due to depletion, there exists a pressure sink around the older existing producers and
that significantly increases the possibility of older well getting "frac-hit" by new stimulation, and receiving
large volume of frac fluid. Frac-hits can easily be seen using pressure gauges in older wells, and other
surveillance techniques including chemical/RA tracers, microseismic, etc. One of the other "interference"
effects that change the behaviour of parent well is refracturing. Operators are identifying candidates that
were either poorly stimulated initially or have lost productivity over their life, and are refracturing those
wells. In both frac-hits and refracs, there is a change in well productivity; and understanding and quantifying
this loss/gain in production still remains challenging.
In this paper, both analytical and numerical modeling techniques were used to explore the existing
workflows and techniques in the literature to study frac-hits and refracs. Rate transient analysis (RTA)
was used to complement the numerical reservoir simulation models. Flow regimes were identified on
superposition time plots using RTA (linear flow regime, boundary-dominated regime), and numerous
sensitivities were run on the frac-hit/refrac timing, reservoir matrix permeability. Frac-hit examples from
Eagle Ford shale were examined.
This paper studies the existing RTA techniques to model frac-hits/refracs and compares them with the
new technique proposed herein. It was observed that RTA models needed to be re-initialized to model post
frac-hit or refrac behaviour to correctly quantify the changes in SRV. It is shown that although the existing
techniques work reasonably well at low matrix permeability, the error margin goes up as the permeability
increases. In Eagle Ford, the permeability is high enough to warrant using this new analysis method.
Existing analyses methods primarily use diagnostic plots (superposition time) and are only applicable to
frac-hits or refracs prior to boundary dominated flow (BDF) regime. This proposed method is valid over
different flow regimes & larger permeability ranges. The analysis method recommended in this study allows
the operators to better analyse the efficiency and benefits of their refracs, as well as detrimental impact of
frac-hits from infilling and downspacing the wells.
2 SPE-184812-MS

Introduction
With the boom in unconventional plays in the onshore US over the last decade, operators, big or small,
have moved fast to amass large acreage positions in different plays. However, one of the challenges in any
development plan is to maintain that acreage position through activity. Often times this involves drilling
minimum number of wells, mostly one or two, per lease a concept commonly referred to as acreage capture
mode and coming back at a later date to drill & complete additional wells to develop the rest of the lease.
It is commonly seen & reported that the existing producer wells (parent well) report sharp decrease in gas/
oil production when the newer wells (child well) are stimulated around them and are brought online (Ajani
and Kelkar, 2012; Kurtoglu & Salman, 2015). Along with the drop in gas/oil rates, water rate usually shows
significant increase indicating the hydraulic connection between the child and parent wells (Figure 1). This
is commonly referred to as a "frac-hit" as the fractures of child well "hit" the parent well's SRV to establish
that hydraulic connection. Frac-hits can easily be observed by monitoring the pressure on the parent well
during the child well's fracture treatment, and seeing sudden pressure spikes as different fracture stages are
pumped (Figure 2).

Figure 1Daily gas and water rates shown for parent well before
(blue) and after (red) the frac-hit from child well (Ajani & Kelkar, 2012)

Figure 2Example of wellhead pressure response of a parent well when the child well started fracture treatment

There are several reasons frac-hits could occur in the field. Pore pressure depletion around the parent well
can create a "pressure-sink" around the well that could attract extremely high-pressure fracture energy from
the child well (Mukherjee et al. 1995). Peza et al. (2014) conducted a geomechanical modeling study and
SPE-184812-MS 3

showed that the child well may have asymmetric fracture growth towards the parent well. Other possible
reasons include underlying geologic features (faults, planes of weakness, high permeability streaks/zones,
etc.) and closer well spacing (Waters et al. 2009). The net result of frac-hits is usually believed to be a
change (usually reduction) in properties and size of parent well's effective fracture area open to flow.
The other instance where well's SRV properties (size, conductivity, etc.) change is when the parent well
is restimulated or refractured. Operators in different unconventional plays have had a big learning curve
in completion optimization, and over time frac treatment sizes have gotten bigger and resulted in better
productivity. More and more operators have gone back to older wells in the play that were completed with
older and smaller frac design, have applied newer completions and have shown the success of refracs (Figure
3). Vincent (2010), French et al. (2014) and Leonard et al. (2015) have discussed the refrac mechanisms,
geomechanics, modeling, well candidate selection, operational challenges and results in different shale
plays extensively. Readers are referred to these papers for more details on refracturing methods and success
stories.

Figure 3Pre and post re-fracturing production rates for different wells in Woodford shale (French et al., 2014)

Quantifying the impact of frac-hits & refracs has gained lot of interest over the recent years especially
as plays mature and more infill drilling is taking place. Especially under current commodity prices, it is
imperative that operators know how much incremental SRV and in turn production refracs generate in order
to do sound economic calculations and make decisions. Ajani and Kelkar (2012) quantified and documented
the impact of frac-hits in Woodford shale by calculating impact on gas rate at any given time. Kurtoglu
and Salman (2015) used change in gas rate decline behaviour to quantify and demonstrate impact on EUR
or productivity. Similarly, Leonard et al. (2015) and others have used decline curve analysis methods to
quantify incremental EURs from refracs. However, these methods only look at gas rate and cumulative
production, and do not incorporate wellhead pressures. A better way to analyse would be to look at wells
productivity and the change in its physical properties (Lawal 2013). Rate transient analysis (RTA) is a
powerful tool that should be used for these analyses as it is a physics-based approach and can provide
detailed insights into well's properties including SRV size, fracture conductivity etc. Anderson et al. (2010),
4 SPE-184812-MS

Nobakht et al. (2011), Virues et al. (2013) and others have written extensively on using RTA for multi-
fractured horizontal wells in unconventional reservoirs, with underlying theory and equations in great detail.
This paper will not go in those details of RTA theory and we refer readers to the papers mentioned above. In
RTA, by plotting the inverse of productivity index versus square root of time, one can calculate the SRV area,
reservoir permeability, fracture conductivity etc. Equations 1 & 2 show the transient linear flow equations
in the form of pressure for slightly compressible liquid (Eq.1) or m(p) for gas (Eq. 2)

(1)

(2)

In equations 1 and 2 all parameters are in field units, and time is in hours. In equation 1, pwf(t) is defined
as the difference between reservoir pressure pi and bottom hole flowing pressure pwf. Similarly, in equation
2, m(pwf(t)) is defined as

(3)

where, m(p) is defined as

(4)

Incorporating equation 5 in equations 1 and 2 and rearranging results in the relation between inverse of
PI ( for liquid and for gas) and (equations 7 and 8)

(5)

(6)

(7)

From equations 7 and equation 8 it can be observed that plot of 1/PI vs results in straight line with slop
dependent on . Hence the change in slope indicates the change in contributing fracture area (assuming
permeability remain unchanged). This is the basis for the analysis method recommended by Lawal et al.
(2013). However, this method assumes the well is in transient linear flow, which can last for few years for
low permeability shale plays, where the flow is occurring from matrix to the fractures in linear manner.
After this linear flow, pressure waves from adjacent fractures see each other, and it marks the beginning of
an apparent boundary dominated flow regime (BDF), which some people in the industry also refer to it as a
pseudo pseudosteady state flow as the true drainage boundary outside the SRV is still not seen by the well
due to low permeability (Figure 4). Previous studies have not examined the cases where frac-hits or refracs
happen once the well has moved out of transient linear flow to BDF regime. In this paper we extend on the
method proposed by Lawal et al. (2013) for the case when frac hits and refracs occur during BDF regime.
In addition, we propose an alternate, physics based method that can work in any flow regime and whose
workflow will be the same regardless of operating conditions, flow regime etc.
SPE-184812-MS 5

Figure 4Schematic showing flow regimes for a multi-fractured horizontal well (Song et al. 2011).

Methodology/Workflow
In this study, a numerical model was created in an in-house reservoir simulator tool (model details in the
next section). The model was populated with properties from Eagle Ford shale, and was run to forecast
30 year well life. RTA was then implemented on the simulation output, mainly gas rate and pressure data.
Outputs from RTA (frac half-length, matrix permeability, number of fractures etc.) were compared to the
initial simulation inputs as a sense check. This step also resulted in creating a benchmark against which
other behaviour could be compared.
Frac-hits were then simulated in the numerical model by reducing number of fractures dynamically after
certain time. This time of frac-hit occurrence was varied, and frac-hits in both linear transient flow as well as
BDF regime were modeled. Matrix permeability was also varied with values of 50nD, 150nD, 350nD, 750
nD. RTA was again implemented on all simulation outputs to understand frac-hit behaviour and response.
Two approaches were used in RTA to understand and quantify SRV loss from frac-hits.

Figure 5Superposition time plot for a well with normal operating conditions
(left), and for a well suffering frac-hit (right) after five months on production
6 SPE-184812-MS

Method 1
Lawal et al. (2013) & others have discussed using RTA to model frac-hits in the past. Their approach simply
fits straight-lines to the superposition plot (inverse productivity index vs square root of material balance
time plot) before and after the frac-hit. From the change in slopes of before and after frac-hit periods, loss in
SRV is calculated assuming matrix permeability is constant (Figure 6). While this approach doesn't really
capture physics of the system and changing transients, it seems to work well for extremely low permeability
shale reservoirs (or, where natural fracture system doesn't result in higher effective system permeability).
However, their study didn't fully dive into the cases where frac-hits or refracs happened later in the well's
life where the flow regime had moved from linear transient flow to a boundary-dominated flow (BDF).

Figure 6Example of method 1 when frac hit happens in linear transient

flow. Superposition time plot is showing slopes before and after frac hit

In this study, method from Lawal et al. (2013) was extended to analyse frac-hits or refracs after the
well had moved from linear transient flow to BDF. For such cases, three regions were identified on the
superposition time plot: linear transient period, BDF period immediately before frac-hit (BDF1), & period
immediately after frac-hit (BDF2). Slopes were fit to each region (slopeLT, slopeBDF1, slopeBDF2 respectively),
as shown in Figure 7, and new A*k after the frac hit was calculated as:

Figure 7Example of method 1 when frac hit (marked by star) happens in

BDF period. Superposition time plot is showing three slopes as described.
SPE-184812-MS 7

Even though there is no real physical meaning of slopes on superposition time plot in BDF region, this
extended technique works reasonably well for low permeability cases.

Method 2
A newer and better approach to analyse frac-hits (or, refracs) using RTA involves capturing physics of
the system. In this method, production data post frac-hit is re-initialized from time zero and is treated as
new well data for RTA, for which average reservoir pressure ( ) just before the frac-hit is used as initial
reservoir pressure (Figure 8). This is because after the frac-hit (or, refrac) well SRV configuration/geometry
changes significantly, new transients are introduced due to operational changes in the field, and well behaves
differently from original well standpoint.

Figure 8Workflow of method 2 where well suffers a frac-hit at t=1200 days (top left) with average
reservoir pressure of 4940 psi just before frac-hit. Well data on superposition time plot is shown in
bottom left plot indicating loss in productivity. The average reservoir pressure just before frac-hit is
used as new initial reservoir pressure for superposition time plot of data post frac-hit (bottom right).

For real field data, this method would involve history matching (analytical or numerical models) the raw
data to the point of frac-hit, and then using the final average reservoir pressure for data post frac-hit. At
first glance, this method might appear to take long time; however, with the analytical modeling capability
of commercial RTA software, this method is pretty quick.

Numerical Model
In this simulation study, all reservoir simulations were performed using an in-house reservoir simulation
tool. This is a single-phase gas-focused numerical simulation. This tool has advantage of discretising
diffusivity equation using pseudo-pressure (m(p)) instead of pressure which linearizes right hand side of the
8 SPE-184812-MS

diffusivity equation and hence speeds up the calculation process. Additionally, the tool has the advantage that
the simulator comes with interfaces for building input data decks suitable for the simulation of complex well
pressure transient responses. In particular, these interfaces include well tested automatic gridding routines
for multi-fracture horizontal wells. Figure 9 shows a plan view of a typical grid for a multi-fracture horizontal
well generated using the single well interface.

Figure 9Illustration of the numerical modeling grid for a horizontal well with multiple transverse hydraulic fractures

Blue line in Figure 9 shows the horizontal well while the white colored grids are the multiple transverse
fractures. The grid blocks at the well tips, fracture tips and the junctions of the fractures with the well are so
small and numerous that they appear as heavy dark black lines at the scale of this plot. This dense gridding
is required to accurately capture the steep flux and pressure gradients characterizing the transient response
of this well/reservoir system. Model inputs are shown below in Table 1. Simple bi-wing fracture geometry
with infinite conductivity was modeled for simplicity. Reservoir properties were assumed to be isotropic
and homogeneous.

Table 1Inputs for numerical reservoir simulation model

Initial reservoir pressure, Pi 8,000 psia

Well lateral length 4,500 ft

Matrix permeability, K 50, 150, 350, 750 nD

Matrix porosity (gas-filled), 7.0 %

Number of fractures 30

Fracture half-length, Xf 250 ft

Fracture height, Hf 100 ft

Fracture conductivity, Kfw 500 md-ft

Gas specific gravity 0.60

SPE-184812-MS 9

Results
As mentioned above, numerous frac-hits and refrac simulations were run at different matrix permeability
(50nD to 750 nD) levels. The timing of frac-hit/refrac was varied in simulations to understand the behaviour
when the well is in linear transient flow regime or BDF regime. For simplicity sake, simulations were run
at nearly constant pressure constraint, except for the early time where the well is constrained by maximum
gas rate in higher permeability range. Following the frac-hit, wells were shut-in for nearly a month to mimic
real field operations. Results from the analysis are shown below.

Frac-hits in Linear Transient Flow regime (or, pre-BDF)

Production profiles (gas and pressure) for frac-hits happening in pre-BDF period are shown in Figure 10 for
different permeability levels. Results from method 1 and method 2, and their comparison with numerical
model are summarized in Table 2.

Figure 10Production profiles for different matrix permeability. Frac-hits are marked by star.
10 SPE-184812-MS

Figure 11Superposition time plot using "Method 1" for RTA analysis on frac-hits at different matrix
permeability levels (50nD top left, 150nD top right, 350nD bottom left, 750nD bottom right).

Figure 12Superposition time plot using "Method 2" for RTA analysis on frac-hits at different matrix permeability
levels (50nD top left, 150nD top right, 350nD bottom left, 750nD bottom right). Each plot shows
the "initial" reservoir pressure that was obtained from average reservoir pressure just before frac-hit.
SPE-184812-MS 11

Table 2Results of RTA analysis on frac-hit cases (in pre-BDF regime) at different matrix permeability.

Method 1 Method 2

Matrix Perm (nD) Pre frac-hit Actual Post Post frac-hit % Error Post frac-hit %Error
frac-hit

50 21,200 10,600 9,600 9% 12,000 -13%

150 36,700 18,350 15,500 16% 20,200 -10%

350 56,130 28,065 22,500 20% 25,500 9%

750 82,160 41,080 33,500 18% 38,900 5%

Frac-hits in BDF regime

Production profiles (gas and pressure) for frac-hits happening in BDF period are shown in Figure 13 for
different permeability levels. Results from "extended" method 1 and method 2, and their comparison with
numerical model are summarized in Table 3.

Figure 13Production profiles for different matrix permeability. Frac-hits (in BDF regime)
are marked by star. Y-axis is zoomed in to better depict production loss from frac-hit

Table 3Results of RTA analysis on frac-hit cases (in BDF regime) at different matrix permeability

"Extended" Method 1 Method 2

Matrix Perm (nD) Pre frac-hit Actual Post Post frac-hit % Error Post frac-hit %Error
frac-hit

50 21,200 10,600 9,600 9% 17,300 63%

150 36,700 18,350 20,450 11% 20,700 13%

350 56,130 28,065 33,500 19% 31,000 10%

750 82,160 41,080 49,500 20% 37,000 10%

12 SPE-184812-MS

As shown in the Table 2, 3 & Figure 15, method 1 & extended method 1 work okay for low permeability,
however, method 2 works better at higher permeability levels. RTA, especially using superposition time
plots to calculate A*k, can be pretty subjective and these % error numbers can go up or down. However,
it is believed that the trend of two methods will usually hold true.

Figure 14Superposition time plot using " extended Method 1" for RTA analysis on frac-hits at different matrix permeability
levels (50nD top left, 150nD top right, 350nD bottom left, 750nD bottom right) when frac-hits happened in BDF regime.

Figure 15Comparison of error % for method 1 & 2 at different matrix permeability levels. Plot on the left shows cases where
frac-hit happened in linear transient (pre-BDF regime), and plot on the right has cases where frac-hit happened in BDF regime.
SPE-184812-MS 13

Discussion
As mentioned in the previous sections, the benefit of method 2, where the well is re-initialized with average
reservoir pressure just prior to frac-hit or a refrac, is that it captures physics of the system. Moreover, the
workflow of this method is the same regardless of the flow regime, which can sometimes be harder to
identify in field data with the noise. Extension of method 1 (Lawal et al., 2013) was shown to work in
boundary dominated flow regime; however it is purely analytical with no physical meaning of the parameters
involved. Moreover, as the matrix permeability increases, method 1 seems to lead to larger error margins
(Figure 15). Method 2 showed bigger error at low permeability level, reasons of which are not obvious. At
this time, the authors can merely speculate that at extremely low permeabilities, short shut-in time may not
be enough to reach a true average reservoir pressure. However, more detailed work is needed to understand
the phenomenon happening at really low permeability levels.

Conclusions
Rate transient analysis is a powerful, robust tool and should be used over traditional decline curve
analysis methods to evaluate true performance of a refrac or impact of a frac-hit.
Previous method to evaluate frac-hits was applicable only in the linear transient flow regime.
Modification or extension of that method was shown to work in the boundary dominated flow
regime.
These methods still rely on proper identification of flow regimes which, depending on the data
quality and noise, can sometimes be hard to distinguish and can lead to erroneous results
A new method or workflow was proposed altogether to evaluate refrac and frac-hits that does not
rely on flow regime identification. Under this method, data post refrac or frac-hit is re-initialized
using average reservoir pressure and is treated as a new well for RTA.
This new method is physics based and can provide more robust results as compared to earlier
analytical method.
Previous analytical method (and its extension to BDF flow) works well at low permeability range.
However, the newly proposed method works better at higher permeability ranges. Depending on
the unconventional play permeability, reader has the flexibility to use either method and get good
results for evaluation of frac-hits and refracs
More detailed work is needed to understand the phenomena at play for newly proposed method at
extremely low permeability ranges.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank BP's South Texas Reservoir Management team and Unconventional Technology
team for their support in allowing us to complete and publish this work. We would also like to thank Jack
Jones for his continuous help and guidance.

Nomenclature
Af Total area of fracture opens to flow (ft2)
Bl Formation volume factor for reservoir fluid (RB/STB)
ct Total compressibility for liquid filled reservoir (sip)
cti Total compressibility for gas filled reservoir at initial reservoir pressure condition
(sip)
h Formation reservoir net thickness (ft)
kl Effective Permeability to Liquid (mD)
kg Effective Permeability to Gas (mD)
14 SPE-184812-MS

ql Liquid production or injection rate (STB/d)

qg Gas production or injection rate (mscf/d)
nf Total Number of fracture open to flow
T Reservoir Temperature (F)
t Elapse time of production or injection (hr)
xf Fracture half length (ft)
pwf Difference between reservoir pressure pi and bottom hole flowing pressure pwf (psia)
Porosity
l Liquid viscosity (cp)
gi Gas viscosity at initial reservoir pressure condition (cp)
m(p) Pseudo-Pressure, (psi2/cp)

References
Ajani A. and Kelkar M., "Interference Study in Shale Plays", paper SPE 151045 presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 6-8 February, 2012.
Anderson, D. M., Nobakht, M., Moghadam, S., and Mattar, L., "Analysis of Production Data from Fractured Shale Gas
Wells", paper SPE 131787 presented at the SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA,
23-25 February, 2010.
French, S., Rodgerson, J., and Feik, C., "Re-fracturing Horizontal Shale Wells: Case History of a Woodford Shale Pilot
Project", paper SPE 168607 presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands,
Texas, USA, 4-6 February, 2014.
Kurtoglu B. and Salman A., "How to Utilize Hydraulic Fracture Interference to Improve Unconventional Development",
paper SPE 177953-MS presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi,
UAE, 9-12 November, 2015.
Lawal, H., Jackson, G., Abolo, N., and Flores, C., "A Novel Approach to Modeling and Forecasting Frac Hits in Shale Gas
Wells", paper SPE 164898 presented at the EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, London, UK, 10-13 June, 2013.
Leonard, R. S., Moore, C. P., Woodroof, R. A., and Senters, C. W., "Refracs- Diagnostics Provide a Second Chance to
Get it Right", paper SPE 174979-MS presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Texas, USA, 28-30 September, 2015.
Mukherjee, H., Poe, B., Heidt, H., Watson, T., and Barree, R. D., "Effect of Pressure Depletion on Fracture Geometry
Evolution and Production Performance", paper SPE 30481 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 22-25 October, 1995.
Nobakht, M., Clarkson, C.R., and Kaviani, D., "New and Improved Methods for Performing Rate-Transient Analysis
of Shale Gas Reservoirs", paper SPE 147869 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Jakarta,
Indonesia, 20-22 September, 2011.
Peza. E., Kvale, E., Hand, R., Harper, W., Jayakumar, R., Wood, D., Wigger, E., Dean, B., Al-Jalal, Z., and Ganpule,
S., " 3-D Integrated Workflow for Understanding the Fracture Interference and Its Impact into the Gas Production of
the Woodford Shale", paper URTeC: 1923397 presented at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference,
Denver, Colorado, USA, 25-27 August, 2014.
Song B. and Ehlig-Economides C., "Rate-Normalized Pressure Analysis for Determination of Shale Gas Well
Performance", paper SPE 144031 presented at the SPE North American Unconventional Gas Conference and
Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 14-16 June, 2011.
Vincent M. C., "Refracs Why Do They Work, And Why Do They Fail in 100 Published Field Studies?", paper SPE
134330 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19-22 September, 2010.
Virues, C., Chin, A., Turco, F., and Anderson, D., "Application of Rate Transient Workflow in Unconventional Reservoirs:
Horn River Shale Gas Case Study", paper SPE 167042 presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference
and Exhibition-Asia Pacific, Brisbane, Australia, 11-13 November, 2013.
Waters, G., Dean, B., Downie, R., Kerrihard, K., Austbo, L., and McPherson, B., "Simultaneous Hydraulic Fracturing
of Adjacent Horizontal Wells in the Woodford Shale", paper SPE 119635 presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 19-21 January, 2009