Permeability prediction using pressure and microseismic data: a laboratory experiment
Samik Sil*, David Lane, and Jennifer Gabler, ConocoPhillips; Carl Sondergeld and Chandra Rai, University of
Oklahoma
Summary
We describe a method of determining enhanced
permeability from hydraulic fracturing. This method
depends on the analysis of the transient pressure after shut-
in and integrating it with microseismic derived fracture
geometry. We present an example of permeability
prediction using a laboratory data set from the University
of Oklahoma. In this laboratory experiment, a tight
sandstone sample is hydraulically fractured. Acoustic
emission data during hydraulic fracturing is recorded and
sources relocated. Permeability of the sample is measured
before and after the fracturing. Predicted permeability using
the described method matches reasonably well with the
laboratory measured permeability of the post fractured
sample.
Introduction
Although microseismic data is becoming a powerful tool
for monitoring and determining the geometry of induced
hydraulic fractures, its use as a source of additional
geomechanical information is currently limited. These
limitations are largely a consequence of issues with
availability and reliability of the required data. An example
of information that is desirable but difficult to obtain is the
enhanced permeability due to hydraulic fracturing.
Recently, however, two methods of permeability prediction
have been developed by Shapiro et al. (2006) and Grechka
et al. (2010), which depend on the precise location of
microseismic events.
In this paper we describe a novel method of determining
permeability by combining borehole pressure and
microseismic data, a method borrowed from earthquake
seismology. After any large earthquake, it is common to
observe changes in the water level of distant water wells
(see Sil, 2006). Sometimes, the observed pressure changes
in the wells are due to the passage of a surface wave, which
enhances the permeability of the aquifer by creating new or
clearing filled fractures (see Brodsky et al. 2003). In this
case, from the typical diffusive or transient change in the
water level (or pressure), one can determine the enhanced
permeability of the reservoir. We can apply a similar
technique for calculating the enhanced permeability due to
the hydraulic fracturing, when continuous pressure data
(similar to the water level data) and the corresponding
microseismic event locations are available. In this paper we
present a case study where this technique is applied to
laboratory data to estimate the enhanced permeability due
to hydraulic fracturing.
2014 SEG
SEG Denver 2014 Annual Meeting
For this study, we use data acquired by the University of
Oklahoma (OU) petroleum and geological engineering
department. A detailed description of the data and related
work can be found in Damani et al. (2012) and Damani
(2013). In this experiment, a tight sandstone (Lyons
sandstone) core is subjected to tri-axial stress conditions. A
vertical hole (or well) is drilled up to the middle of the
sample, and water is pumped at constant rate. The water
produces hydraulic fractures and corresponding
microseismic events. Acoustic emission signals from the
sample are recorded by sixteen sensors cemented on the
surface and permeability is measured before and after
hydraulic fracturing.
We show that, from this data set, we can successfully
predict the enhanced permeability. Even though this
method is tested on laboratory data, in the future, we hope
to apply it to field microseismic data.
Theory of predicting permeability from pressure and
microseismic data
In this section, we describe the method of determining
permeability using pressure and microseismic event
location data. The pressure data used here is from borehole
pressure, measured during hydraulic fracturing at a certain
depth. It is assumed that the observed pressure changes are
related to the changes in the treatment pressure and the
fracturing mechanism. For this theory to be valid, the
source of pressure diffusion (hydraulic fracture) is an
infinite line source located at a certain depth, z, from the
pressure measuring point.
Pressure induced during any hydraulic fracturing procedure
starts to diffuse after reaching breakdown pressure and after
stopping fluid pumping. Pressure diffusion obeys a
standard 1D diffusivity equation which can be written as
(Brodsky et al., 2003):
p 2 p
D 2 0. (1)
t z
The simplest solution for equation (1) is the standard
Kelvin solution (Brodsky et al., 2003), which can be
written as:
p( z, t ) p0 erf ( z / 4Dt ). (2)
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2014-0244.1
Page 2299
 Permeability Prediction

In equations (1) and (2), p is the pore pressure, p0 the initial
amplitude of the pressure (i.e. breakdown pressure or ISIP),
t is the time after breakdown or shut-in, z is the depth
where pore pressure is diffusing, and D is the hydraulic
diffusivity. Based on equation (2) we can define
z2
, (3)
4D
as the characteristic decay time of the pressure. Therefore,
we can rewrite equation (2), as (Sil, 2006):
p( z, t ) p0 erf ( ). (4)
Now, by carefully selecting the pressure data after
breakdown and after shut-in we can determine from
equation (4). Distance z can be obtained from microseismic
event locations. For a 2D planer fracture, z is equivalent to
the fracture height. Once z and are available, we can
determine hydraulic diffusivity, D, from equation (3). Then
permeability, K, can be determined using the following
relationship (Shapiro et al. 2003):
Laboratory experiment from OU
We test our theory of permeability prediction on a data set
acquired at the University of Oklahoma Petroleum and
Geological engineering department laboratory. Although
several samples have been described and analyzed, we
present our results using data from only one sample (viz.
ST-4, see Damani, 2013). ST-4 is a cylindrical Lyons
sandstone sample, with low insitu porosity (3-8%) and
permeability (2-20 d). A tri-axial stress system is applied
to the sample with 1=2000 psi, 2=750 psi, and 3=500
psi. The cylinder is 138.8 mm long and has a diameter of
99.86 mm. A hole is drilled from surface to a depth of 80.5
mm in the sample for pumping water. Figure 1 is a
schematic of the sample ST-4.

NK
D . (5)

Here N is a poroelastic modulus (a function of fluid, grain
and dry frame modulus) and is the fluid dynamic
viscosity. N is defined as:
MPd
N , (6)
H
where,
Figure 1: A schematic diagram of the sample ST-4 (From
1
M
/ K ( ) / K g
, (7) Damani et al. 2012). Stress directions and borehole
locations are shown in the figure.
f

Water is pumped through the borehole at a rate of 10 cc per

1 Kd / K g , (8) minute, and borehole pressure is monitored throughout the
process. When pressure reaches 5000 psi, breakdown
occurs in the sample. Pumping continues for
H Pd 2 M , (9) approximately 120 seconds after this. A total of sixteen
geophones are placed around the sample and continuously
monitor acoustic emission events generated from breaking
Pd K d 4 / 3 d . (10) down the sample. A total of twenty five thousand events
are detected in this experiment, of which we have located
Here Kf,d,g are bulk moduli of the fluid, dry frame, and grain eight thousand. Figure 2 shows a map view of the located
material respectively. d and are the frame shear modulus events.
and porosity respectively. Therefore, when all the
parameters are available, one can determine the
permeability, K, of the fractured medium.

2014 SEG DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2014-0244.1

SEG Denver 2014 Annual Meeting Page 2300
 Permeability Prediction
Figure 2: Map view of the located 8000 microseismic
events from sample ST-4. The main fracture is clearly
visible from the location of these events. Events are
distributed from the surface through the entire depth of the
sample.
Figure 3: Top panel: variation of pressure with time (blue
line).Pumping rate (10 cc/min) is the black broken line.
Bottom panel is the r-t plot of the events (see text).
In figure 3, we plot the variation of pressure with time in
the top panel. Pumping rate is also shown here. In the
bottom panel, we plot the located events distance from the
pumping point as a function of time (r-t plot). This figure
indicates the event development history with time and their
correlation with the different phases of pressure change.
From the top panel of Figure 3 we can see that break down
of the sample occurs at around 5000 psi after 100s of
pumping. The bottom panel of Figure 3 shows the first
burst of microseismic events at that time. This figure
2014 SEG
SEG Denver 2014 Annual Meeting
suggests the main hydraulic fracture was created very
quickly as the microseismic events between 100-150s cover
the entire hydraulically fractured zone. A large pumping
induced hydraulic fracture is visible from the surface
(Figure 4) and correlates well with the microseismic events
(Figure 2).
A second burst of events are observed during shut down of
the pumping (before 250s). These events correspond to the
diffusion of induced pressure/fluid without any additional
source. This burst of events during shut-in of the flow is
commonly observed in the field.
A final burst of events (3rd burst) is observed around 350s
of pumping. This burst is due to unloading the applied
stress and can only be observed under laboratory conditions
(where the applied stress is physically removed) and may
not be present during hydraulic fracturing in field
conditions. Note that post fractured permeability measured
on the sample should be affected by the presence of the 3 rd
burst of microseismic events. As a result, we expect to
observe higher permeability due to the unloading induced
fracturing.
Figure 4: After hydraulic fracturing, the induced fracture is
visible from the top surface (marked with two black lines).
From Damani et al, 2013.
Permeability calculation
To implement the proposed method, we choose the
pressure data after breakdown and shut-in. We then fit the
selected pressure data to obtain using equation (4). We
use the value of z=139 mm from the microseismic event
location. As discussed in the theory, z in this case (2D
fracture) corresponds to the fracture height. Figure 5 shows
the fitting of the data after breakdown (top panel) and after
shut-in (bottom panel).
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2014-0244.1
Page 2301
 Permeability Prediction
From the fitting and event locations we obtain D values
after breakdown of 7.6X10-4 m2/s and after shut-in of
0.002m2/s. From the physical properties of the sample
(=0.03, Kd=29 GPa, d=26 GPa, Kf = 1.4 GPa, =0.05 Pa
s; see Damani, 2013) and using equation (5), we obtain
permeability, K, after breakdown of 0.98 md and after shut-
in of 2.6 md. The average value of K measured in the
laboratory after complete fracturing of the sample is 5-6 md
(which is expected to be higher than the true value due to
later breakdown of the sample by applied stress removal or
unloading of the stress).
Figure 5: Fit of the pressure data after break down (top
panel) and shut-in (bottom panel) with equation (4). Red
dots are the data and the blue line is the model.
Discussion and conclusions
We demonstrated a novel technique of permeability
calculation using pressure and microseismic event location
data from a laboratory experiment.
2014 SEG
SEG Denver 2014 Annual Meeting
A similar method of transient pressure analysis to calculate
permeability is frequently employed during the pre-fracture
testing phase. Due to the lack of microseismic events at that
phase, however, fracture geometry is always assumed (a
tuning parameter) for the permeability calculation.
Although in the present study we have obtained the
permeability values in the range of the observed post-
fracture permeability, this method may contain
uncertainties from fracture geometry estimation,
microseismic event relocation errors, and/or from the
poroelastic modulus calculation (N). On the other hand, the
estimation of is relatively straight forward. Therefore, one
can compare the value of before (during testing) and after
shut-in to determine the improvement in permeability at a
particular stage by hydraulic fracturing. This can help to
estimate the efficiency of fracturing for that stage.
Comparison of the efficiency among the stages may
correlate with the stage production.
Finally, our method of permeability estimation using
pressure and microseismic data is relatively new, and we
are hopeful it will open a new horizon for research and
collaboration in the near future.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank ConocoPhillips for allowing us to
present this work. We are thankful to the University of
Oklahoma for performing this experiment and acquiring
acoustic emission data in their lab and sharing the data with
us. Special thanks to Prof. Emily Brodsky for her helpful
comments and suggestions.
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2014-0244.1
Page 2302
 http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2014-0244.1

EDITED REFERENCES
Note: This reference list is a copy-edited version of the reference list submitted by the author. Reference lists for the 2014
SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts have been copy edited so that references provided with the online metadata for
each paper will achieve a high degree of linking to cited sources that appear on the Web.

REFERENCES
Brodsky, E. E., E. Roeloffs, D. Woodcock, I. Gall, and M. Manga, 2003, A mechanism for sustained
groundwater pressure changes induced by distant earthquakes: Journal of Geophysical Research:
Solid Earth, 108, no. B8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002JB002321.
Damani, A., 2013, Acoustic mapping and fractography of laboratory induced hydraulic fractures: M. S.
thesis, University of Oklahoma.
Damani, A., A. Sharma, C. H. Sondergeld, and C. S. Rai, 2012, Mapping of hydraulic fractures under
triaxial stress conditions in laboratory experiments using acoustic emissions: SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, SPE 159604.
Grechka, V., P. Mazumdar, and S. A. Shapiro, 2010, Predicting permeability and gas production of
hydraulically fractured tight sands from microseismic data: Geophysics, 75, no. 1, B1B10,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.3278724.
Shapiro, S. A., C. Dinske, and E. Rothert, 2006, Hydraulic -fracturing controlled dynamics of
microseismic clouds: Geophysical Research Letters, 33, no. 14, L14312,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026365.
Sil, S., 2006, Response of Alaskan wells to near and distant large earthquakes: M.S. thesis, University of
Alaska Fairbanks.

2014 SEG DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2014-0244.1

SEG Denver 2014 Annual Meeting Page 2303