STAGE Architecture Design: 12 vs 15 Clusters
This case study evaluates a three-year field development partnership, focusing on the transition from a two-bench to a three-bench development strategy and comparing the performance of 12-cluster versus 15-cluster stage architectures. The operational analysis highlights the mechanical differences in stage design; while both utilize a 225-foot stage length, the 15-cluster setup employs 30 holes per stage compared to just 24 holes in the 12-cluster configuration.
Field results indicate that the 15-cluster architecture significantly outperforms the 12-cluster design across multiple operational metrics. The 15-cluster setup achieved a higher average pump rate of 99 bpm compared to the 12-cluster's 95 bpm, while concurrently reducing the required treating pressure. Furthermore, the 12-cluster pad demonstrated a 9% lower perforation efficiency than the 15-cluster alternative.
These operational discrepancies translated directly into significant economic impacts. The less efficient 12-cluster pad required substantially higher volumes of friction reducer and acid, culminating in an estimated overspend of $393,027. This total overspend was driven by expenses related to slower pump rates ($141,600), increased friction reducer usage ($122,135), and higher acid requirements ($129,291).
