Use of Microseismic Monitoring To Compare Completion Designs

Getty Images

This study compares the performance of openhole-packer completion systems with that of cemented-liner completion systems in the northern Montney gas resource play. The authors’ data demonstrate that the benefits of openhole completions include an increase in initial production (30-day average) (IP30) rates, an increase in expected ultimate raw gas recovery per well, and a decrease in stimulation-period costs, all on an unadjusted basis. When adjusted for total proppant placed or total fluid pumped on average per completion, the relative benefit of openhole systems ranges from 6 to 31%, depending on the test metric selected.


Recovery optimization from the Montney presents a unique development challenge because of the play’s extensive thickness and corresponding multilayer extraction potential. In the Blair/Town Block study area, it has been observed that openhole completions consistently outperform cemented-liner completions when considering standard metrics of production and cost.

Completion-liner systems for horizontal wells are designed to isolate ­hydraulic-fracture treatments to minimize stimulation pumping interference between successive stages. At present, two basic liner designs enjoy widespread use:

1. Openhole multistage (OHMS) liners, wherein annular isolation is provided by external packers.

2. Cemented-liner perforate-and-plug (CLPP) systems, wherein cement provides mechanical isolation along the liner annulus. These two liner designs are discussed in further detail in the complete paper.

This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Chris Carpenter, contains highlights of paper SPE 174955, “Comparing Openhole-Packer Systems With Cemented-Liner Completions in the Northern Montney Gas Resource Play: Results From Microseismic Monitoring and Production,” by James Reimer, Matthew Ng, and Bryan Dusterhoft, Painted Pony Petroleum; Brad Birkelo, Spectraseis; and Barry Hildek, Packers Plus Energy Services, prepared for the 2015 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 28–30 September. The paper has not been peer reviewed.
This article is reserved for SPE members and JPT subscribers.
If you would like to continue reading,
please Sign In, JOIN SPE or Subscribe to JPT

Use of Microseismic Monitoring To Compare Completion Designs

20 October 2016

Volume: 68 | Issue: 11