Reservoir Technology

Making Engineered Comple1ons an Every Well Event Dale Logan

VP Reservoir Technologies C&J Energy Services

Drilling Data …. A New Direc1on • Weight On Bit (WOB) • Drilling Speed (RPM) • Rotary Torque (TOR) • Rate of PenetraFon (ROP) • DifferenFal Pressure (DIFP) • StandPipe Pressure (SPP) • Mud Flow Rate (Q)

MSE Equa1on (with Mud Motors)

MSE = UCS * Deff

WOB N D ROP Q

Weight on Bit (k-lbs) Rotary Speed (RPM) Bit diameter (in) Rate of PenetraFon (Q/hr) Mud Flow Rate (gal/min)

Tmax !Pmax Kn !P

Mud motor max-rated torque (Q-lb) Mud motor max-rated !P (psi) Mud motor speed to flow raFo (rev/gal) DifferenFal Pressure (psi)

LateralScience Facies LogPlot

3 most common ques1ons

How does MSE compare to Sonic Geomechanics? Does well producFvity REALLY vary as rock strength varies? Do engineered compleFons REALLY deliver be^er wells?

Case Study 1: How Does MSE compare to Sonic?

Stage Level Detail

A

B

C

D

E

UCS

BRIT

MSE

A

HD1

HD1

HD1

B

HD4

HD4

HD4

C

HD1

HD1

HD1

D

HD2

HD3

HD3

E

HD2

HD2

HD2

Case Study 2: Does Produc1vity REALLY vary with Rock Strength? G eometric P erf D es ig n S tag e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

P lug 17500 17201 16903 16604 16305 16006 15707 15408 15109 14810 14511 14212 13913 13614 13315 13016 12717 12418 12119 11820 11521 11222 10924 10625 10326 10027 9728 9429

C lus te r 1 17749 17450 17151 16853 16554 16255 15956 15657 15358 15059 14760 14461 14162 13863 13564 13265 12966 12667 12368 12069 11770 11471 11172 10874 10575 10276 9977 9678 9379

C lus te r 2 17650 17351 17052 16753 16454 16155 15856 15557 15258 14959 14660 14361 14062 13763 13464 13165 12867 12568 12269 11970 11671 11372 11073 10774 10475 10176 9877 9578 9279

C lus te r 3 17550 17251 16952 16653 16354 16055 15756 15457 15158 14860 14561 14262 13963 13664 13365 13066 12767 12468 12169 11870 11571 11272 10973 10674 10375 10076 9777 9478

•  29 stage geometric compleFon •  Half stages => homogeneous •  Half stages => heterogeneous •  ProducFon logs run in June & Oct



CONT CLUSTERS – 58/86

Produc1on By Cluster Stages 1-10 5 4 3 2 1 0

3 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 2 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Stages 11-20 5 4 3 2 1 0

1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Stages 21-29 3 2 1 1 3 0 2 3 2

5 4 3 2 1 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ContribuFng Clusters

59/86

Stages 2 & 9

Case Study 3:

Do eng comple1ons REALLY make beTer wells? •  3 Wolfcamp wells completed in 2015 using LateralScience designs •  2 of 3 are close and compared to a group of 23 wells all within a 4 mile radius of each other •  3rd well compared to 9 other wells, also within a 4 mile radius

Produc1on Improvement

Quan1fying the Performance Group A

BOE/ lateral B/ mo

BOE/ Proppant (lbs)

Avg for 23 wells

3.4

2.79

Subject well 1

5.7

4.24

Subject well 2

5.2

4.17

Performance

+61%

+50%

Ranking Group B

3,4 4,5 BOE/lateral BOE/ B/mo Proppant(lbs)

Avg for 9 wells

2.3

1.54

Subject well 3

2.94

2.13

Performance

+28%

+38%

1

2

Ranking

Groups included wells that were: •  All drilled in same calendar year •  All with 4 mile radius of each other •  All had comparable TVD (+/-) 2 metrics used to quanFfy well producFvity: •  BOE/month/lateral Q •  BOE/month/lb proppant This allowed us to compare wells that used different compleFon strategies and also to compare wells with different length laterals.

Conclusions

How does MSE compare to Sonic Geomechanics? Does well producFvity REALLY vary as rock strength varies? Do engineered compleFons REALLY deliver be^er wells?