ARMA 12-276

Understanding Hydraulic Fracture Variability Through Geomechanical

Integration of Microseismic and Seismic Reservoir Characterization
Maxwell, S.C.
Schlumberger, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Norton, M.
Progress Energy, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Copyright 2012 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 46th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in Chicago, IL, USA, 24-27 June
2012.
This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical review of
the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA
is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Economic recovery of shale gas reservoirs requires effective hydraulic fracturing in order to stimulate production.
In this paper, a case study is presented from the Montney Shale in NE British Columbia, where microseismic and reservoir
characterization data were used to understand some of the constraints on the fracture geometry. The study found that when wells
were close to pre-existing faults, the hydraulic fractures were found to interact with these faults and act as a barrier to fracture
growth. The microseismicity associated with the fault activation was found to have relatively large magnitudes and anomalous
frequency-magnitude characteristics. In cases where the wells were far from pre-existing faults simple, planar hydraulic fractures
were observed. However, there was a tendency to grow towards regions of low Poisson’s ratio identified through amplitude versus
offset inversion of the seismic reflection data, which are believed to correspond with lower stress regions. Integrating microseismic
interpretations and fracture treatment data with enhanced reservoir characterization has been used to rethink well placement and
completion designs, resulting in improved well performance.
fractures have been found to change from simple
1. INTRODUCTION fracture planes to complex fracture networks, fracture
Microseismic imaging of hydraulic fractures is a directions change, and the fracture height and length can
common diagnostic technology in all North American also dramatically change even over the length of a single
tight gas and shale gas fields. Fracture stimulation for horizontal well [1]. Furthermore, fracture asymmetry
enhanced permeability is a critical step for economic (i.e. preferentially growing in a certain direction) has
exploitation of these unconventional reservoirs. been observed to rapidly change over short distances.
Microseismic imaging has shown that hydraulic These observations suggest that reservoir heterogeneity,
fractures are much more complex than originally in terms of rock fabric, stress and pore pressures are
thought, with fractures often showing a high degree of important factors contributing to this variability. The
depth containment and long fracture lengths. Another variability also points to the value of integrating
significant learning is that the hydraulic fractures often reservoir characterization and microseismic monitoring:
interact with pre-existing fractures in the reservoir. where the results can be used to better design the
Typically, hydraulic fractures are considered to be single hydraulic fracture stimulations and better understand the
tensile fractures created orthogonal to the direction of reservoir drainage for subsequent well placement.
minimum principal stress. However, the injected fluid
In order to better understand the influence of reservoir
will follow a path of least resistance and depending on heterogeneity, efforts are growing to compare
the stress conditions, may intersect pre-existing planes of
microseismicity with seismic reservoir characterization
weakness associated with either healed or open fractures.
as well as well logs (e.g. formation imager or advanced
The resulting hydraulic fracture is therefore more
sonic logs). In this paper, we further discuss the case
complex than a single hydraulic fracture plane, often
study and investigate microseismic locations and source
consisting of a network of both newly created hydraulic characterization integrated with seismic reflection
fractures and deformed pre-existing fractures in various
attributes, injection pressures and production to
orientations.
investigation the geologic and geomechanical conditions
Microseismic hydraulic fracture images have also shown controlling the hydraulic fracture variability.
that there can be significant variability of fracturing over
relatively short distances. For example, hydraulic
2. MONTNEY SHALE CASE STUDY
We investigate the stimulation of three horizontal wells
in the Montney formation in NE British Columbia.
While generally considered to be a shale, the Montney is
best described as a silty sandstone [2]. Low matrix
permeability in the range of microdarcies, requires
hydraulic stimulation for economic gas production.
Multiple stage stimulations were performed along the
length of each horizontal well, with the associated
microseismicity recorded for each of these stimulations.
AVO surface seismic reflection data was inverted for
Poisson’s ratio through the reservoir, and an edge
detection algorithm (ant tracking) was also applied to the
reflection data to assess pre-existing faults and fractures
[2,4]. Figure 1 shows a superposition of the
microseismic and Poisson’s ratio, indicating that the
microseismic activity appears to concentrate in regions
of low Poisson’s ratio. Note the clustering of relatively
large magnitude microseismicity to the east of Well C.
Clearly there is evidence of reservoir heterogeneity
which is controlling the hydraulic fracture geometry.
Figure 1. Map view of microseismicity recorded during
fracturing of three wells, overlain by Poisson’s ratio
(purple is high values and red is low). Microseismic
symbol size is scaled by magnitude.
In this paper we will further examine the variability of
the hydraulic fractures and attempt to answer the
following questions:
Why are the microseismic events large along Well C?
Why are there no microseismic events towards the NE?
Why do the microseismic events tend to go towards the
SW?
Why is the geometry of the microseismic events
different near Well A?
To dig deeper into the microseismic response, seismic
moment density (measure of microseismic strength or
deformation) and b-values (slopes of frequency-
magnitude distributions) were computed. Seismic
deformation and b-values are useful microseismic
attributes to discern if hydraulic fractures result in fault
activation [3]. Hydraulic fractures intersecting pre-
existing faults generally results in increased
microseismic magnitudes as well as lower b-values. For
each well, the stages closest to the monitoring well were
examined, where the location accuracy and signal-to-
noise ratio was highest. In this case, seismic moment
density (Figure 2) shows a region of relatively high
microseismic deformation following a trend
approximately parallel to the NW-SE trajectory of the
southern most well C. b-values (Figure 3) are
approximately 1 in this region of high deformation,
suggesting a fault activation mechanism. In contrast, the
microseismicity associated with well A define a clear
NE-SW trend and have a higher b-value. The moment
density is also smaller for these events. These results for
well A are more typical of a simple planar hydraulic
fracture parallel to the expected maximum stress
direction. Composite fault plane solutions for these two
clusters of events also showed that the events associated
with the high moment density and low b-value near
Wells B and C are consistent with a shear slip striking in
the NW-SE direction [4]. The hydraulic fracture related
events near well A following the NE-SW trend are
consistent with a shear strike-slip in that direction.
The instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) observed at the
end of each injection was examined, which is considered
a measure of the minimum principle stress. Figure 4
shows the relative ISIPs for each stage overlain with the
Poisson’s ratio. Generally, low ISIPs are found in the
low Poisson’s ratio regions, suggesting that these regions
represent regions of lower stress.
The case study also shows an interesting aspect in terms
of well interference. Figure 5 shows the microseismic
from the two wells, where the microseismic locations are
seen to overlap. The hydraulic fractures in each well
stimulated the same fracture network, and resulted in
interfering hydraulic fracture networks between the
wells Production data was also examined for the three
wells (Figure 6). Production rates from Wells A and C
are significantly better than Well B. Also notice that the
production on Well A falls as Well B comes on line,
indicating interference as the two wells attempt to drain
the same portion of the reservoir. Understanding the
hydraulic fracture networks created in each well, allows
better well placement to avoid well interference.
Figure 2. Contours of log seismic moment density (left) and superimposed with microseismicity (right).

Figure 3. b-value (frequency-magnitude slope) contours (left) and superimposed with microseismicity (right).

Figure 4. Color coded ISIP gradients (kPA/m) at the
perf locations superimposed on the microseismic and
Poisson’s ratio data.
Figure 5. Map view of microseismicity associated
with Well A (blue) and Well B (red).
3. DISCUSSION
Returning to the questions about the hydraulic fracture
geometry, each are discussed in turn.
1. Why are there large microseismic events along
Well C?
The seismic deformation, b-values and focal
mechanisms all point towards interaction of the
hydraulic fractures with a NW-SE striking fault system.
While the fault interaction is predominantly associated
with fracturing Wells B and C, a small indication is
found for the NE extent of the Well A microseismicity.
Edge detection within the seismic reflection volume
indicates a fault associated with a lateral discontinuity in
reflections below the reservoir, directly under the region
of largest seismic deformation (Figure 7 and 8). The
large number of high magnitude microseismic events
along Well C is attributed to fault activation consistent
with the vertical extension of this fault.
2. Why are there no microseismic events towards
the NE?
If microseismicity had occurred further to the NE, it
would have been detected by the microseismic array.
This is especially true for the region directly to the NE
of the monitoring well, which is within about 400m of
the monitoring well and well within the microseismic
detection limits [4]. The interaction between the
hydraulic fracture and fault system appears to act as a
barrier to the hydraulic fracture extending further to the
NE. As long as the permeable open fault allows fluid
penetration within the fault network, it is easy to imagine
that it would be unlikely to create a new hydraulic
fracture. Well C, however, does have an indication of
300
Well C
Well B
250
Well A
200
150
100
50
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Figure 6. Production rates for each well.
microseismicity to the SW of the well (occurring later in
each stage) which suggests that eventually the hydraulic
fracture does starts to grow out of the fault network. As
described in the next section, the microseismicity then
moves in a SW direction similar to the rest of the wells.
Therefore, the lack of microseismic event towards the
NE is attributed to fracture asymmetry associated with
the fault system near Wells B and C.
Figure 7. Seismic reflector edge detection results
below the reservoir overlain with microseismicity.
Figure 8. Ant tracking volume and corresponding seismic section showing two interpreted faults (red dashed
lines). Right side is zoomed in region showing relationship with microseismic.
3. Why do the microseismic events tend to go
towards the SW?
The microseismicity from each well grows preferentially
in a SW direction, towards the direction of lower
Poisson’s ratio. A constrained, horizontal stress effect is
associated with transverse strain resulting from the
vertical lithostatic load which is given by:
σH = σh = ( ν/(1 - ν)) * σzz + σtectonic
and would result in lower stresses in lower Poisson’s
ratio (ν) material and result in more hydraulic fracture
growth in that direction. The observed ISIP gradients
(Figure 5) are also consistent with lower stresses in the
lower PR regions.
4. Why is the geometry of the microseismic events
different near Well A?
The microseismic events associated with stimulation of
Well A are distributed in the maximum stress direction,
as expected for a tensile hydraulic fracture. Therefore,
Well A appears to be anomalous simply due to the lack
of fault activation seen around Wells B and C.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The distribution of the microseismicity recorded during
the hydraulic fracturing of these wells appears to be
controlled by both the reservoir heterogeneity of the
reservoir and pre-existing faults/fracture networks.
During the frac of the first well A, the microseismicity
shows a conventional hydraulic fracture, trending in the
expected NE-SW direction: orthogonal to the minimum
stress direction. This well is in the center of the low
Poisson ratio region and does not interact with pre-
existing faults, ultimately resulting in the best production
out of the three wells. While the distribution is
approximately symmetric, there are a larger number of
events and more deformation to the SW in the direction
of the lower Poisson’s ratio (Figure 2). The second well
B, is drilled along the inferred NW-SE fault system and
results in significantly more deformation concentrated
near the well. Microseismicity associated with well B
also grows asymmetrically towards the SW overlapping
with the well A microseismicity, indicating interaction
between the hydraulic fracture networks. Production data
from these wells confirms well interference between
these two wells. The third well C, also is drilled along
the NW-SE fault system and the hydraulic fracture again
results in significant seismic deformation along the well.
Less seismic deformation occurs as the microseismicity
moves SW towards the low-Poisson’s ratio region. The
NW-SE trending fault structure appears to act as a
barrier to the fractures growing further to the NE. The
pre-existing fault structures have the strongest control on
the hydraulic fracture and microseismic distributions,
although the fractures do seem to preferentially grow
towards the lower stress areas with low Poisson’s ratio.
Clearly understanding these controls is critical to enable
a properly designed and executed well stimulation
design as well as subsequent well placements.

REFERENCES
1. Rich, J.P. and Ammerman, M. 2010. Unconventional
Geophysics for Unconventional Plays, presented at the
SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, 23-25 February, SPE 131779.
2. Norton, M., Hovdebo, W., Cho, D., Maxwell, S. and
Jones, M., 2010, Integration of Surface Seismic and
Microseismic for the Characterization of a Shale Gas
Reservoir, presented at the SEG Annual Meeting, San
Antonio, Texas.
3. Maxwell, S.C., Jones, M., Parker, R., Leaney, S., Mack,
M., Dorval, D., D’Amico, D., Logel, J., Anderson, E.,
and Hammermaster, K., 2010, Fault Activation During
Hydraulic Fracturing, presented at the 2010 CSEG
Convention, May, Calgary, Alberta.
4. Maxwell, S.C., Cho, D., Pope, T., Jones, M., Cipolla,
C., Mack, M., Henery, F., Norton, M., and Leonard, J.,
2011, Enhanced Reservoir Characterization Using
Hydraulic Fracture Microseismicity, presented at the
SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, 24-
26 January, The Woodlands, Texas, SPE140449.