American Oil and Gas Reporter - August 2018 - 60

SpecialReport: Horizontal Wellbore Construction
FIGURE 3A
Sycamore Well's Six-Month Oil Production versus
Production Distribution of Meramec/Mississippian and Woodford
Log normal regression, STACK area,
Woodford
STACK area, Woodford

P2

Log normal regression, SCOOP area,
Woodford
SCOOP area, Woodford

P5

Log normal regression,
Meremec/Mississippian
Meremec/Mississippian

P10
P20

Sycamore well

P30
P40
P50
P60
P70
P80
P90
P95
P98
100

1,000
10,000
100,000
6-Month Oil/Condensate Production (bbl/1,000 ft)

1,000,000

FIGURE 3B
Sycamore Well's Six-Month Gas Production versus
Production Distribution of Woodford in STACK and SCOOP
Log normal regression, STACK area, Woodford
STACK area, Woodford
Log normal regression, SCOOP area, Woodford

P2
P5

SCOOP area, Woodford

P10
Sycamore well

P20
P30
P40
P50
P60
P70
P80
P90
P95
P98
1,000

10,000
100,000
6-Month Gas Production (Mcf/1,000 ft)

60 THE AMERICAN OIL & GAS REPORTER

1,000,000

264,871 Mcf/1,000 feet and 10,985
bbl/1,000 feet, respectively.
The lack of horizontal Sycamore activity in the area makes it difficult to
determine the overall performance of
the stimulation treatment. Given that
little to no recent Sycamore activity has
occurred in the vicinity of this well (and
most of that activity involves vertical
wells), the Meramec and Woodford formations were used to benchmark the
well's performance. Wells in both datasets
were completed after the beginning of
2014 to better reflect current completion
trends and to maintain a larger dataset
(408 Woodford wells and 295 Meramec
wells). All production was normalized
by lateral lengths.
Figure 3A shows six-month liquid
hydrocarbon production of the Sycamore
well relative to the production distribution
from the Meramec and Woodford formations. Figure 3B shows six-month
gas production from the Sycamore well
relative to the production distribution of
the Woodford in both the STACK and
SCOOP plays. The data indicate that
the Sycamore well's six-month performance was better than 70 percent of wells
in the Mississippian/Meramec formations
in terms of oil production, and better
than 86 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of all Woodford wells in the
Anadarko Basin in terms of condensate
and gas production.
Generally speaking, the gross interval
for the Sycamore formation was approximately 200 feet for this well, and the
Caney and Woodford formations acted
as sufficient boundary layers for fracture
height growth during simulation. Gross
fracture heights usually extended through
the entire interval. However, because the
fluid system was a hybrid of slickwater
and linear gel, propped fracture heights
almost never extended farther than 100
feet. Likewise, gross fracture lengths
often exceeded 1,000 feet, but propped
fracture length never extended more than
600 feet.
Because there are no adequate offsets
in the vicinity of the well, it is difficult to
determine the impact of the stimulation
treatments on the well's production. From
an operational perspective, however, impacts were observed from using the novel
biodegradable diverting agent and microproppant. The production values alone
demonstrate the potential of the Sycamore
formation in the area.
For analytical purposes, EURs for gas
American Oil and Gas Reporter - August 2018

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Oil and Gas Reporter - August 2018
