EOG Resources' Well Design Revolutionizes Unconventional Oil Production. Will this be copied by producers in the Cline (Lower Wolfcamp)? Is this a game changer?
May be yes and maybe no IMO. All these formations are different as to downhole characteristics. As result, one cannot take Eagle Ford / EOG frac approach results and automatically use them in Cline or vice versa. Very much the same witthe Bakken which is a totally unique reservoir set up situation.
Each formation / area has its own specific "cook book" of ideal frac approaches. There are even drastically different approaches across the Eagle Ford as to proppant concentrations, frac spacing, fluid and prop types, etc. Specific approaches for specific areas. And trying to "force" an approach from one area into another tends to either under stimulate the section or result in a failed frac'd job.
This is the "best practices" issue that operators are still struggling with as to Cline Shale completions.
Did I miss read or did the article say they were using this approach in the Eagle Ford and the Bakken? If used in both places even though characteristics are different is there a specific reason why it would not work here?
Przzz said:
May be yes and maybe no IMO. All these formations are different as to downhole characteristics. As result, one cannot take Eagle Ford / EOG frac approach results and automatically use them in Cline or vice versa. Very much the same witthe Bakken which is a totally unique reservoir set up situation.
Each formation / area has its own specific "cook book" of ideal frac approaches. There are even drastically different approaches across the Eagle Ford as to proppant concentrations, frac spacing, fluid and prop types, etc. Specific approaches for specific areas. And trying to "force" an approach from one area into another tends to either under stimulate the section or result in a failed frac'd job.
This is the "best practices" issue that operators are still struggling with as to Cline Shale completions.
Similar in that operators are using more proppant but different as to concentrations. EOG has now been upsing 1500# per foot and higher in the EF trend while the Bakken is seeing "only" about 1000# per lateral foot. Definitely an improvement over earlier concentrations but no where near as robust as in the EF (which I know of one operator now using 1800# per lateral foot).
This is the localized recipe' that I referred to, i.e. finding the right mix of concentration vs post frac performance and results.
So it is correct that other operators are taking the concept of higher proppant concentrations to other areas the difference is the concentration volumes that work best in each area (and this is tied to the reservoir / dowhole variabilities).
What is not noted in the article is the mix of proppant sizes (e.g. 10-30 vs 20-40), proppant types (e.g. pure sand vs resin coated sand vs artificial proppants), pump rates (e.g. bbls per minute), perf stage thickness and perf cluster lay outs and fluids (e.g. slick water, gels, etc).
All part of the idealized recipe for any one area.
Sorry if I was miss leading in my comments - I tended to look deeper in the the specifics vs. the generalized overall frac approach.
The impact of increased proppant concentrations regardless of type is a big issue as to the value of companies that provide proppant to operators (which I believe is the gist of the Seeking Alpha article). EOG owning their own sand mines in Wisconsin is a HUGE issue for them.
Recently read that there are some issues in the upper Midwest with some states looking to restrict the creation of new proppant sand mines for envirnomental reasons. The ripple effect on O&G plays that require proppant could be extreme if the source of this non-renewable resources starts to be limited.
Craig Wascom said:
Did I miss read or did the article say they were using this approach in the Eagle Ford and the Bakken? If used in both places even though characteristics are different is there a specific reason why it would not work here?
Przzz said:May be yes and maybe no IMO. All these formations are different as to downhole characteristics. As result, one cannot take Eagle Ford / EOG frac approach results and automatically use them in Cline or vice versa. Very much the same witthe Bakken which is a totally unique reservoir set up situation.
Each formation / area has its own specific "cook book" of ideal frac approaches. There are even drastically different approaches across the Eagle Ford as to proppant concentrations, frac spacing, fluid and prop types, etc. Specific approaches for specific areas. And trying to "force" an approach from one area into another tends to either under stimulate the section or result in a failed frac'd job.
This is the "best practices" issue that operators are still struggling with as to Cline Shale completions.
Przzz I read something about ceramic propant. Is this a manufactured product? You are right about the restricting of new permits for sand pits. From what I understand is everybody and their moma wanted to open one so it is probably a good thing to slow that down.
Does anybody know if EOG used this new completion technique in Barnhardt?
Ceramic proppant is manufactured - usually a bauxite base and very expensive / but also has much higher strength that can withstand a lot more pressure.
The mines issue is a big one - especially in states where the economy is less than ideal. Mines (normally strip mines) can not just be put anywhere but only in areas where the idea rock is very close to the surface. Lots of equipment required to process the rock into frac sand. And the environmental impact can be pretty severe as one can imagine.
I have to look at some EOG Barnhardt completions to see what method they appear to be utilitizing.
Craig Wascom said:
Przzz I read something about ceramic propant. Is this a manufactured product? You are right about the restricting of new permits for sand pits. From what I understand is everybody and their moma wanted to open one so it is probably a good thing to slow that down.
Does anybody know if EOG used this new completion technique in Barnhardt?
In Barnhardt area in Permian (EOG also has Barnhardt area in Gonzales EF trend), EOG is drilling LONG horizontals (over 9000') and frac'ing with about 1100-1200# per foot concentrations (or about 10 Million pounds of proppant per well).
Interesting that offset operators in same area (e.g. Devon) are drilling much shorter laterals and only frac'ing with less than 1000# per foot. And getting lower IP's - but only about a third lower than what EOG is seeing from 200% longer laterals ans a lot more $$$ and completion effort.
Still working on best practices here - and different strokes for different companies.
Craig Wascom said:
Przzz I read something about ceramic propant. Is this a manufactured product? You are right about the restricting of new permits for sand pits. From what I understand is everybody and their moma wanted to open one so it is probably a good thing to slow that down.
Does anybody know if EOG used this new completion technique in Barnhardt?
The reason I asked the ceramic propant question is I was wondering if there has been any talk about advances such as different shapes or maybe even particles with holes in them?
Przzz said:
Ceramic proppant is manufactured - usually a bauxite base and very expensive / but also has much higher strength that can withstand a lot more pressure.
The mines issue is a big one - especially in states where the economy is less than ideal. Mines (normally strip mines) can not just be put anywhere but only in areas where the idea rock is very close to the surface. Lots of equipment required to process the rock into frac sand. And the environmental impact can be pretty severe as one can imagine.
I have to look at some EOG Barnhardt completions to see what method they appear to be utilitizing.
Craig Wascom said:Przzz I read something about ceramic propant. Is this a manufactured product? You are right about the restricting of new permits for sand pits. From what I understand is everybody and their moma wanted to open one so it is probably a good thing to slow that down.
Does anybody know if EOG used this new completion technique in Barnhardt?
Haven't seen any discussion on using ceramics or different shape or type of proppants yet. But always looking.
Good reference below for various proppant issues including ceramics.
http://www.carboceramics.com/CARBO-PROP/
Craig Wascom said:
The reason I asked the ceramic propant question is I was wondering if there has been any talk about advances such as different shapes or maybe even particles with holes in them?
Przzz said:Ceramic proppant is manufactured - usually a bauxite base and very expensive / but also has much higher strength that can withstand a lot more pressure.
The mines issue is a big one - especially in states where the economy is less than ideal. Mines (normally strip mines) can not just be put anywhere but only in areas where the idea rock is very close to the surface. Lots of equipment required to process the rock into frac sand. And the environmental impact can be pretty severe as one can imagine.
I have to look at some EOG Barnhardt completions to see what method they appear to be utilitizing.
Craig Wascom said:Przzz I read something about ceramic propant. Is this a manufactured product? You are right about the restricting of new permits for sand pits. From what I understand is everybody and their moma wanted to open one so it is probably a good thing to slow that down.
Does anybody know if EOG used this new completion technique in Barnhardt?
Ceramic proppants, based on clay mineralogy characteristics alone - should be the most durable, most thermodynamically stable material known to human-kind at this point. All rocks weatherize to clay minerals given the proper conditions. Sand is essentially weathered Quartz - and that seems mighty durable right? Not so much compared to clay minerals! Kaolinite is the most stable, and most broken down clay. The main mineral in “China Clay” a/k/a Kaolinite is mostly phlogopite mica and it comprises roughly 85% of kaolinite. So, if you get a say in the matter - express a preference for clay proppants - yes, even other clays besides kaolinite - because clays are more weathered and more stable than sand proppants. Bauxite sounds great as a clay proppant, but I know kaolinite is cheaper and more abundant and likely better - so there are some business and political factors involved there - the science favors kaolinite vs. bauxite from a materials science and raw materials standpoint - I can’t speak to the manufacture of the clay proppant as a proprietary product and manufacturing process, product, etc.
Are you suggesting that the sand proppants are not holding up and leading to the fast depletion of production?
Ralpr are you familar with the problems we have been having with clay in the TMS? Would the ceramic help this situation?
Ralpr said:
Ceramic proppants, based on clay mineralogy characteristics alone - should be the most durable, most thermodynamically stable material known to human-kind at this point. All rocks weatherize to clay minerals given the proper conditions. Sand is essentially weathered Quartz - and that seems mighty durable right? Not so much compared to clay minerals! Kaolinite is the most stable, and most broken down clay. The main mineral in "China Clay" a/k/a Kaolinite is mostly phlogopite mica and it comprises roughly 85% of kaolinite. So, if you get a say in the matter - express a preference for clay proppants - yes, even other clays besides kaolinite - because clays are more weathered and more stable than sand proppants. Bauxite sounds great as a clay proppant, but I know kaolinite is cheaper and more abundant and likely better - so there are some business and political factors involved there - the science favors kaolinite vs. bauxite from a materials science and raw materials standpoint - I can't speak to the manufacture of the clay proppant as a proprietary product and manufacturing process, product, etc.
Hi J, I know the Energy companies know what they are doing. I should have qualified my comments about clay minerals being more durable on the scale of thousands, if not millions of years vs. sand which is known to be durable not as long as clay minerals. For energy wells it is site-specific, and condition-specific - I quite aware of. For energy wells - I know there are strong pluses and minuses for using clay proppants and sand proppants.
j richardson said:
Are you suggesting that the sand proppants are not holding up and leading to the fast depletion of production?
Hi Craig, I truly do not know. It depends on the engineering maximizing site-specific conditions. I should have said in my comments that based on the weather ability of rocks and clays - clays , due to their being the most highly weathered are more durable. This strictly from a materials science perspective. This is why modified clay should be used more for say, nuclear and hazardous wastes, it’s going to last a lot longer than rocks like those found in Yucca mountain.
Clays are extremely complex - more so than rocks - and man is barely scratching the surface of what clays and clay minerals can do. My other point is that it may seem counter- intuitive to most that clays being used as proppants could be more durable than sand proppants, but I bet a dollar that is the case. Again, not in a time-frame we would see in our lifetimes - based on mineralogy.
Ralpr
Craig Wascom said:
Ralpr are you familar with the problems we have been having with clay in the TMS? Would the ceramic help this situation?
Ralpr said:Ceramic proppants, based on clay mineralogy characteristics alone - should be the most durable, most thermodynamically stable material known to human-kind at this point. All rocks weatherize to clay minerals given the proper conditions. Sand is essentially weathered Quartz - and that seems mighty durable right? Not so much compared to clay minerals! Kaolinite is the most stable, and most broken down clay. The main mineral in "China Clay" a/k/a Kaolinite is mostly phlogopite mica and it comprises roughly 85% of kaolinite. So, if you get a say in the matter - express a preference for clay proppants - yes, even other clays besides kaolinite - because clays are more weathered and more stable than sand proppants. Bauxite sounds great as a clay proppant, but I know kaolinite is cheaper and more abundant and likely better - so there are some business and political factors involved there - the science favors kaolinite vs. bauxite from a materials science and raw materials standpoint - I can't speak to the manufacture of the clay proppant as a proprietary product and manufacturing process, product, etc.
With kaolinite related proppants, is there an issue with the crystallography of clay minerals (i.e. flat morphology) vs. those of sand and bauxite (i.e. more crystal / rounded shape)? One would think that even if stable, clay proppants - being flat - would be difficult to prop open a fracture.
Does this comment on the Eagle Ford apply to the Cline as well? Pretty interesting statment, does it have any basis in truth?
.....Consider this: the common belief that an operator is able to recover 10-15% of the available resource with the initial completion of an Eagle Ford Shale well. As technology improves, it is likely that companies will be able to go back into many of these wells, re-stimulate them, and recover much more of that resource decades from now.... - See more at: http://www.adroitoilandgas.com/blogs/most-recent-news/2013/11/1/the...
Przzz - The flat shape of clay minerals - due to various mica minerals - should be an advantage. Because there is mica, it can stack up in layers like a pancake very densely and is very stable - so, these properties should bode well for clay proppants. Denser and more durable because the clay minerals stack up extremely well - grains of sand probably not as good - again this is not a problem for if not hundreds then thousands of years (sand should be very strong for a long time). BUT, maybe the clay proppants will be the preferred proppant - due to business and environmental reasons - time will tell. That’s a marketplace business battle in the beginning of the first inning.
Ralpr
Re: Androit O&G Comments
This will come across as pretty negative, but NO Eagle Ford operator with any experience in the Trend is citing 10% or higher recovery factors. EOG has the highest numbers I have seen so far - and it is only 8% in their sweet spot of trend. Most operators cite lower percentages (e.g. 4-5%).
On top of this, reservoir engineers and other technical experts who have exposure to massive amounts of core and production data support these assumptions on recovery factors.
So it is not "the common belief".
Up to seeing this posting, I have never heard of Androit O&G - appear to be a very new player to the EF trend and they also appear to be pumping up investors with these sort of comments.
Can the Cline or other Permian Basin reservoirs have 10% + recovery factors? Yes and no - all depends on the reservoir characteristics and stimulation efficiencies. But established operators in the Basin will cite single digit recovery factors for the most part.
Craig Wascom said:
Does this comment on the Eagle Ford apply to the Cline as well? Pretty interesting statment, does it have any basis in truth?
.....Consider this: the common belief that an operator is able to recover 10-15% of the available resource with the initial completion of an Eagle Ford Shale well. As technology improves, it is likely that companies will be able to go back into many of these wells, re-stimulate them, and recover much more of that resource decades from now.... - See more at: http://www.adroitoilandgas.com/blogs/most-recent-news/2013/11/1/the...
Ralpr,
Good points on clay mineral shape. I am guessing that the natural surface tension associated with some clays may allow the clays to be create "books" of clay grain clusters to be good proppant materials.
Overall concept is very thought provoking.
Ralpr said:
Przzz - The flat shape of clay minerals - due to various mica minerals - should be an advantage. Because there is mica, it can stack up in layers like a pancake very densely and is very stable - so, these properties should bode well for clay proppants. Denser and more durable because the clay minerals stack up extremely well - grains of sand probably not as good - again this is not a problem for if not hundreds then thousands of years (sand should be very strong for a long time). BUT, maybe the clay proppants will be the preferred proppant - due to business and environmental reasons - time will tell. That's a marketplace business battle in the beginning of the first inning.
Ralpr
Thanks Przzz! I have learned tons from your posts, and please keep them coming!
Ralpr