throbber
CASE STUDY
`
`packersplus.com
`
`StackFRAC system provides superior production and economics
`Granite Wash, Oklahoma/Texas, USA
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The Granite Wash formation is a tight-sand, oil and gas rich reservoir
`located in the northern Texas Panhandle and western Oklahoma. At
`depths of 9,000 to 12,500 ft, the formation is comprised of several thick
`sequences of sand separated by shale ranging in thickness from 1,500
`to 3,500 ft. Because of the higher market value, the Granite Wash is
`an attractive play for operators due to the high amount of natural gas
`liquids it produces.
`
`In addition, good pipeline infrastructure and a positive regulatory
`environment in the area contribute to the popularity of the formation.
`Although the Granite Wash was first developed over 40 years ago,
`continued advancements to horizontal drilling and completions are
`allowing operators to improve recovery in the area.
`
`CHALLENGE
`
`Due to the heterogeneity in the mineralogy, pore pressure and
`hydrocarbon type in the Granite Wash, production potential varies
`greatly throughout the formation. Because of this, determining the
`best completion method can be difficult and must be evaluated. Low
`permeability and porosity indicate a requirement for hydraulic fracturing
`to effectively drain wells in the Granite Wash.
`
`The two main methods for completion are the Packers Plus StackFRAC®
`open hole multi-stage fracturing system and cemented liner “plug
`and perf” (CLPP). In order to maximize the productivity and overall
`economics of their wells, an operator working in the Granite Wash
`analyzed these two methods to determine which was most effective.
`
`GRANITE WASH
`
`GULF OF
`MEXICO
`
`A comparison of these two methods was highlighted in a study done
`in the Granite Wash, which analyzed six wells completed using the
`Packers Plus StackFRAC system versus 24 CLPP wells. The area of study
`was selected by categorizing wells in the Granite Wash according to
`completion method. Both StackFRAC and CLPP completed wells were
`found in the Central area, commonly known as Northwest Mendota
`and Hemphill Fields, which included wells in central Hemphill up to
`the Hemphill/Roberts county line. Cumulative production, cost and
`completion time were used to evaluate the production and economic
`performance of each method.
`
`SOLUTION
`
`RESULTS
`
`Although both of the completion methods used in the Granite Wash aim
`to access the reservoir by initiating fractures, they differ significantly in
`operations. Packers Plus StackFRAC systems use RockSEAL® hydraulically
`set mechanical packers to isolate zones together with ball-actuated,
`hydraulically activated FracPORT™ sleeves to provide access to the
`formation. Each fracture treatment can be performed in a single,
`continuous operation, which reduces treatment time and allows for
`immediate flowback after all stages have been stimulated. In contrast,
`CLPP completions require cementing of the casing, pumping down of
`bridge plugs to isolate sections, followed by repeated perforating and
`fracturing in each zone for the number of stages requiring stimulation.
`The bridge plugs are removed after the stimulation process, typically
`with coiled tubing.
`
`The study showed that, after 12 months of production, the
`StackFRAC system outperformed the CLPP completions by
`120 MMCFGE, a 33% increase. Cost savings were also realized
`using the StackFRAC system, as the operator saw a $350,000
`to $460,000, or ~30%, savings per well compared to the CLPP
`method. These cost savings are largely associated with the
`efficiency of the StackFRAC system as it is able to perform all
`fracture treatments within as little as 24 hours, compared to the
`CLPP method, which can add an additional four days to pump all
`the stages. The most significant costs associated with the CLPP
`method include additional horsepower, as this method requires
`
`Continued on reverse
`
`Some or all of the systems, methods or products discussed herein may be covered by one or more patents, or patents pending.
`Copyright © 2015 Packers Plus Energy Services Inc. All rights reserved. 15_04_273 26-MAY-2015
`
`1 of 2
`
`Ex. 2056
`IPR2016-01517
`
`OKLAHOMA
`
`MEXICO
`
`NEW MEXICO
`
`TEXAS
`
`COLORADO
`
`KANSAS
`
`

`

`CASE STUDY
`
`packersplus.com
`
`478
`
`358
`
`1.58
`
`1.12
`
`1
`
`12-Month Recovery
`(MMCFGE)
`
`Cost
`(USD, millions)
`
`Stimulation Time
`(days)
`
`Plug & Perf
`
`StackFRAC
`
`5
`
`RESULTS (CONTINUED)
`
`higher pressures to fracture the formation, and the cost of
`employing fracture crews for the extra days. In addition, CLPP
`requires wireline and/or coiled tubing to convey the perforating
`guns and bridge plugs.
`
`Packers Plus StackFRAC systems ensure efficient completions and
`optimal production to attain economic wells in the Granite Wash.
`The obvious advantages presented by this study motivated the
`operator to use Packers Plus technology in many of their Granite
`Wash wells, as well as their Cleveland Sand wells.
`
`This information was originally presented at the SPE Tight Gas
`Completions Conference held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2 – 3 November
`2010. SPE 138445 © 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers.
`
`2 of 2
`
`Ex. 2056
`IPR2016-01517
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket