ARMA 13-678

Field-scale geomechanical characterization of the

Haynesville Shale
Rodriguez-Herrera, A.E., Suarez-Rivera, R. and Handwerger, D.
Schlumberger
Herring, S., Stevens, K.
Encana, Dallas, Texas, USA
Marino, S., Paddock, D., Sonneland L., and Haege M.
Schlumberger

Copyright 2013 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 47th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in San Francisco, CA, USA, 23-26
June 2013.
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 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: In this paper we describe the use of a Heterogeneous Earth Model (HEM) for field scale geomechanical modeling of
a large region with seismic, well-log, and core data in the Haynesville shale. Results are used to ascertain the distribution of
completion quality across the play by means of geomechanical modeling based on core-measured properties propagated to the
seismic-scale. The development of the HEM is a topic of another paper, also submitted to this conference. In that, we explain with
sufficient detail, the integration of core, log and seismic data and the comprehensive laboratory characterization that is necessary
for populating the geomechanical model. In this paper, we start by uploading the HEM geometry model and the distribution of
material properties, to a large scale finite element model (FEM). We impose boundary conditions to realistically represent the
overburden and lateral stresses. Multiple measurements of the minimum horizontal stress (from mini-frac measurements) are used
to constrain the boundary conditions and to ascertain a good match between the stresses resulting from the imposed boundary
conditions, and the measured values. The finite element model helps us evaluating the distribution of stress magnitudes and
orientations resulting from the realistic geologic and tectonic setting as well as the overburden loading. Results allow us to address
the importance of understanding the vertical and lateral variability in properties and the corresponding variability of stress
(magnitude and direction). Results have strong implications on well placement for hydraulic fracturing and wellbore stability
applications.
conditions under which the rock initially coexists in
1. INTRODUCTION equilibrium with the tectonic and geomorphological
Successful well performance in unconventional processes. At later stages, human induced processes
tight shales plays is related to the presence of favorable alter the pre-production geomechanical conditions of the
flow and storage reservoir properties and to the existence field. For example, the “virgin” hydro-mechanical
of sufficient fracture surface area and conductivity after energy state of the subsurface is perturbed upon injection
a stimulation treatment. Hence, the necessary level of and production of reservoir fluids. Similarly, the local
reservoir description for evaluating reservoir stresses and pore pressure are altered during hydraulic
productivity goes beyond characterization of reservoir fracturing. Hence, the geomechanical conditions of the
quality, and also requires characterization of a set of field should be updated, after a relevant period of
completion quality properties that help evaluating the production, for adequate field-scale geomechanical
potential for a successful fracture stimulation treatment. modeling.
Since geomechanical modeling provides a first order
In this paper the term geomechanical model is defined as
control over the design and expected outcome of a the compendium of geometrical and spatial data that
hydraulic fracture, an obvious need arises for enables us to characterize the geomechanical behavior of
geomechanical characterization of unconventional tight the subsurface. For this, we used core, logs, 3D seismic
shales.
data and quantitative assessment of heterogeneity
A field-scale geomechanical characterization requires (Heterogeneous Rock Analysis or HRA) to spatially
understanding the set of rock properties that describe the derive and distribute mechanical properties along a
present-day mechanical (elasto-plastic) behavior under structural model that represents a large region of the
the present day in-situ stress conditions. These are the Haynesville shale play. These data, calculated over the
seismic grid, is in turn mapped on to a computational
mesh for finite element modeling. Results allows us to
evaluate the distribution of the in-situ stress state
(magnitude and orientation) resulting from the
distribution of rock properties, and to validate these
findings by comparison to field observations (e.g., mini-
frac measurements, microseismic data) and operating
experience. Once the mechanical description and the
equilibrated stresses have been validated, we assemble a
measurement-consistent geomechanical model of the
Haynesville shale play and derive geomechanical
attributes for evaluation and mapping of drillability and
Completion Quality (CQ) along the operationally
relevant intervals.
were delineated by seismic interpretations and
constituted the four main zones of the geometrical model
[7]. The Cotton valley sands (CO) and the Smackover
limestone (SO) were part of the seismic survey but were
not included in the study [7]. Figure 1 shows the
geometrical model and the structural representation of
the play over the region of interest. Figure 2 shows the
structural model and the geometry of the rock classes
within the structural model.

2. THE GEOMECHANICAL MODEL

The first effort in the development of the geomechanical
model consists in the definition of the static
geomechanical description, including the geometry
definition and the property distribution. The geometry
was delimited by the boundaries of the region with
seismic data and structural interpretations. The internal Fig. 1. Geometrical model and structural representation of the
property distribution resulted from a complementary use play over the region of interest.
of core and seismic AVO inversion volumes. Both
geometry and internal properties were also defined by
the distribution of HRA rock classes that are superposed
to the structure and layering. These HRA rock classes
represent units with unique texture and composition
characteristics recognized by the data and associated
unique rock properties. The boundary of these units,
represent regions where properties will change from one
rock class to another, and are typically regions that will
result in steeper stress gradients and possibly changes in
stress direction. Thus by honoring the geometry of the
system and the distribution of material properties within
the system, one also sets up the adequate representation Fig. 2. Geometrical model and structural representation and
for evaluation of distributions of stress. the rock class representation over the region of interest.

2.1. Geometry definition 2.2. Property Distribution

A combination of well markers and depth
converted seismic horizons were used to construct a
regional geometrical representation of the North-
American Bossier/Haynesville tight shale group, in
Western Louisiana and Northeastern Texas. The group
consists of organic-rich, predominantly calcareous and
argillaceous mudstone facies of Jurassic (Kimmeridgian)
age. These facies exhibit a broad distribution of organic
and mineral constituents that vary with geographic
location and stratigraphic position [6]. The
Bossier/Haynesville mudstones are overlain by the
Cotton Valley sandstone group, and are underlain by the
Smackover limestone group [6]. For the purpose of this
study, we subdivided the Bossier-Haynesville system in
to Upper Bossier (UBSR), Mid-Bossier (MBSR), Lower
Bossier (LBSR) and Haynesville (HSVL) units, which
One limitation in the assessment of unconventional
plays at seismic scale is that of the evaluation of
reservoir quality and completion quality depends on a
large and varied number of properties that span across
multiple disciplines, which are typically not available at
the seismic scale. For example, to define reservoir
quality and the variability of reservoir quality across the
play, one needs to evaluate three basic conditions of
hydrocarbon in place, hydrocarbon mobility and
hydrocarbon properties. This could be done, in the
laboratory, by measuring the hydrocarbon filled porosity
and the effective porosity, by evaluating the organic
content and degree of organic maturity, by measuring
permeability, and defining phase diagrams for the
various fluids. Similarly, for completion quality, one
needs to define fracture containment, fracture
complexity, retention of fracture conductivity, retention
of surface area as a function of production, and the scale relationships between the static and dynamic
impact of rock-fluid interactions on the above. There are elastic properties measured at the core scale. These were
a number of mechanical, surface-chemical and geologic used in this paper to generate the static, anisotropic
properties that help us making this assessment. These elastic tensor.
properties, however, are only accessible via laboratory
Elastic anisotropy plays a fundamental role in
testing on core and not at the seismic scale.
the stress-strain relationship of the rock and this has a
Our method for providing core-measured controlling influence in the variability in the in-situ
properties at the seismic scale is by building rock stress (magnitude and orientation), in the development of
physics models between seismic attributes and core well bore stresses and in most indicators of far field and
measured data, or log-predictions of core data, on a HRA near-wellbore completion quality indicators. Ignoring
rock class by rock class basis. This is done by defining anisotropy typically leads to an oversimplification of the
regression models between the two sets of data, on a geomechanical behavior, weak models and wrong
class by class basis, and deriving the equations for the predictions.
attributes of the seismic data. The method provides the
The anisotropic (transversely isotropic)
following advantages: In the event that the data are not
compliance tensor (Love, 1927; Graham and Houlsby,
linearly correlated over the zone of interest, subdivision
1983) is defined in Equation 1.
into rock classes increases the linearity of any
relationship at the rock class level. Similarly, in the ⁄ ⁄
⁄ ⁄
event that the data is non-Gaussian distributed over the
⁄ ⁄
zone of interest, subdivision into rock classes is more ⁄
likely to result on more Gaussian distributed data, at the ⁄
rock class level. Making the rock-class-level distribution [ ] [ ⁄ ][ ]
more Gaussian considerably improves the quality of the
(Eq. 1)
regression models. For example, in the case of
excessive scatter over a large interval, the scatter is With seismic inversion results resolved around a
typically reduced at the class level by the fact that each vertically propagating seismic wave; we re-parameterize
rock class represents a consistent pattern of the multi- the elastic tensor into an equivalent perturbed isotropic
variate inputs to the classification algorithm that is a compliance tensor, around the vertical component:
subset of the whole. ⁄ ⁄
⁄ ⁄
The process is applicable to any measured ⁄ ⁄
property in the core and not exclusive to acoustic or ⁄
elastic properties. For example, we propagate ⁄
measurements of gas filled porosity (GFP) and total [ ] [ ⁄ ][ ]
organic carbon (TOC), to facilitate the evaluation of
(Eq. 2)
reservoir quality across the play [7]. We do the same
with rock strength, rock hardness, rock creep and other This definition of an transversely isotropic
relevant properties. What is required are property material enables to decouple the property modeling
measurements on a HRA rock class by rock class basis, process in two stages, whereby the vertical Young’s
with sufficient redundant sampling as to obtain a modulus, , and the vertical Poisson’s ratio, , are
representative statistical distribution of the property for obtained from volumes of inverted (vertically incident)
this class. One important set of properties that are compressional and shear waves velocities; and the
evaluated at the rock class level is the static and dynamic resulting anisotropic compliance tensor is achieve by
anisotropy in acoustic velocity and elastic properties. incorporating the perturbation parameters , and
This variability in properties in relation to the rock fabric . These former are simply a reformulation of
(i.e., material symmetry), is a characteristic property of laboratory measured values of / , and
each rock class and is also propagated to the seismic :
scale on a rock class by rock class basis. Thus, to the (Eq. 3)
extent and reliability that rock classes defined at the log
scale can be identified by isotropically inverted seismic (Eq. 4)
data, these can be populated with anisotropic properties. (Eq. 5)
Furthermore, upon any estimates of seismic velocity
anisotropy, the resolution for discriminating classes Such formulation is expressed in a local
increases and seismic velocity models can be validated coordinate system, aligned with the rotation axis of the
by the measured anisotropic properties for each class. material’s symmetry plane. As most of the extent of the
The method also allows us to propagate to the seismic Haynesville shale play exhibit low dipping angles, we
assumed, with reasonable accuracy, that the axis of
rotational symmetry will be aligned with the vertical
component of the spatial reference system.
Using the vertical component of the
stiffness/compliance tensor from the pre-stacked seismic
AVO inversion (Herwanger, 2011), and the seismic-
scale evaluated ratios / , and ,
derived from rock physics models applied at the rock
class level, we defined the elastic anisotropy in each
voxel of the 3D model. The final dynamic property
model provides all the necessary components of the
elastic stiffness tensor to the finite element model. This
will be used for mechanical simulations of stress
distribution, fracture containment wellbore stability and
other applications. Figure 3 shows the distribution of
elastic isotropic properties, defined by the initial seismic
inversion and mapped at the top of the Haynesville unit.
Figure 4 and Figure 5 shows the ratios of horizontal to
vertical Young’s moduli, over the same region.
Fig. 3. Distribution of isotropic Young’s modulus (Mpsi)
derived from pre-stacked seismic AVO inversion. Values are
plotted at the top of the Haynesville unit. Note the variability
in rock stiffness, and primary stress magnitude control, that is
exposed by means of seismic inversion data.
Fig. 4. Distribution of the horizontal to vertical Young’s
moduli ratio. Results are plotted at the top of the Haynesville
unit.
Fig. 5. Distribution of the horizontal to vertical Young’s
moduli ratio. Cross-sectional view. Results are plotted from
the base of the Haynesville unit to the top of the upper-Bossier
unit.
2.3. Dynamic-to-static conversion
Static elastic properties are used to evaluate the
distribution of stress and for evaluations of mechanical
stability and fracture containment. Dynamic elastic
properties are obtained from seismic inversion and
geophysical well logs. A relationship between static to
dynamic elastic properties is thus necessary for
propagating the former to the Heterogeneous Earth
Model, and we defined rock physics models that relate
the static elastic properties measured on core to the
inverted seismic attributes. In a further refinement of the
workflow, the rock physics models are derived and
applied on a rock class by rock class basis, using the
HRA classes.
Figure 6 shows the top view distribution of the ratio
between static and dynamic elastic properties at the top
of the Haynesville unit. Figure 7 shows the
corresponding values along a particular cross section.
High values (red) indicate units where the static and
dynamic values are identical. Low values (dark blue)
indicate values where a considerable difference between
the two exists, and the dynamic Young modulus is
considerably higher than the corresponding static
modulus.
Fig. 6. Distribution of the static to dynamic ratio for the
vertical Young’s modulus, along the top of the Haynesville
unit.
Fig. 7. Distribution of the static to dynamic Young’s moduli
ratio, cross-sectional view. Results are plotted from the base
of the Haynesville unit to the top of the upper-Bossier unit.
3. FIELD-SCALE STRESS MODELING
3.1. Regional stress directionality
Far-field stress directionally was obtained from
regional geology, operating experience and consistency
with fracture direction observed from micro-seismic
acoustic data. Horizontal wells to the northwestern part
of the field are drilled towards the north or south of the
field, and parallel to the minimum horizontal stress.
Microseismic data from selected wells, obtained
while monitoring their respective hydraulic stimulation
treatments, provided general information on the
direction of the maximum-horizontal stress (Figure 8).
Microseismic event clouds during fracturing were
observed to define consistent orientations, generally
perpendicular to the direction of the wells. Furthermore,
given that the lateral spread of the hydraulic fracture can
be sensitive to the anisotropy of the in-situ stress field
and the presence and orientation of weak planes [8], an
initial estimate of low regional stress anisotropy has
been based on the small lateral spread of micro-seismic
acoustic events (see Figure 8).
In-situ stress magnitudes where obtained from
hydraulic fracture closure measurements (mini-fracs)
from 27 wells across the field. These values were used
as reference points for field-scale stress simulation and
calibration. Figure 9 shows the distribution of the wells
with fracture closure measurements.
Fig. 8. Micro-seismic measurements to the north-western part
of the field along hydraulically stimulated wells. Stress
directionality from micro-seismic data was inferred with the
assumption of a vertically aligned fracture opening against the
least principal stress (normal stress regime).
Fig. 9. Well locations and field-wide observations of fracture
gradients (color scale), within the Haynesville shale unit.
3.2. Stress magnitudes
Evaluation of stress magnitude consists in
identifying the set of far-field boundary conditions that
result in a stress model that replicates the measured
stress values at their wellbore location. This is achieved
via an iterative approach aimed at minimizing the
difference between the simulated and observed stress
values. The initial conditions are evaluated based on
observed average stress directionality, maximum to
minimum stress anisotropy and minimum horizontal
stress magnitude. For the Haynesville Shale, well
observations suggest fracture closure pressures ranging
from 0.87 psi/ft to 1.35 psi/ft, and a field average of 0.94
psi/ft. (Figure 10). Figure 11 shows results of
simultaneous stress calibrations across multiple wells,
based on iterative changes of the applied boundary
conditions,
Fig. 10. Fracture closure pressure measurements at 27 wells.
The values range (x-axis) from 0.87 psi/ft to 1.35 psi/ft, and a
field average of 0.94 psi/ft, with probability of occurrence in
the y-axis.
Pore pressure was included as part of the input
parameters of the simulation model. The Bossier-
Haynesville system presents overpressures with both
gradual and abrupt changes with depth. Abrupt changes
in pore pressure gradients were observed at the Mid
Bossier and the Haynesville reservoir shales, with
recorded overpressures of up to 17.8ppg or 0.925 psi/ft
(Zhang, 2011). Local operating experience indicates
normal pore pressure gradients until the markers
identifying the Top Bossier, followed by a gradual
increase towards the Haynesville with values up to 0.9
psi/ft. Pore pressure gradients are input to the finite
element model as absolute magnitudes, with the
assumption that a bulk pore pressure inside an element
can be approximated from the arithmetic average of
different pore pressures acting with the same volume of
interest, but at a much finer scale.
Fig. 11. Results of simultaneous stress calibrations of multiple
wells, based on iterative changes of the applied boundary
conditions. Each 3D stress solution is projected along wells
with measured stress data and a quantitative assessment is
made on the model ability to reproduce observations. Bottom:
colored lines depict pore pressure (blue), overburden stress
(black), observed stress gradient (red) and the results of
different stress simulations (pink, magenta and purple).
3.3. In-situ stress simulation
To model the initial stress state, prior to
production, stress boundary conditions are specified,
including a distribution in pore pressure. The simulation
aims to equilibrate the boundary conditions with an
internal stress state that honors the anisotropic
stress/strain relationships defined on each element and
obtained from a seismic data mapping on to a finite
element mesh.
The total vertical stress load results from the
cumulative contribution of seismic bulk densities
averaged over each element and treated as gravitational
body loads during the simulation. The total horizontal
stress gradients where applied to the four lateral
boundaries, with numerical values that are function of
the field observations and the relative angle between the
boundary normals and the directions of applied far-field
stresses. These boundary stresses where defined within
normal stress regime relations.
Field wide faults were implicitly included in the
model in form of property discontinuities and displaced
horizons affecting mesh geometries. The presences of
fine scale discontinuities were not taken into account as
only coarse scale geomechanical behaviors were of
interest and the overall effects of planes of weakness
were assumed to be lumped within seismic information.
The final stress simulation results are presented in
the form of element-wise average of gauss point stress
tensors, reported at the element centers. This
information is then presented as three principal stresses
and eigenvectors depicting their corresponding Cartesian
orientations. At a first instance, local stress variations
inside the Haynesville are evaluated as a function of two
control factors, acting at different spatial frequencies.
Structural controls over stresses arise from depth
variations along a layer and to shape variations, flexures
and displacements. Additional controls affect stresses to
accommodate rapid changes in material properties and
driving stress magnitude concentrations and orientation
redistributions. These effects manifest themselves at
different spatial frequencies and are captured by a finite
element stress simulation with appropriate material
model, layer geometries and applied boundary
conditions.
Results provide the variability in stress
directions that are associated to the structural geometry
and also to local changes in material properties. Results
also provide the variability in the vertical and horizontal
stresses associated to the variability in elastic properties
across the region and the structural geometry of the
system. Figure 12 shows the variability in stress
directions and magnitude along the surface representing
the top of the Haynesville shale. The overall topography
of this surface, including the presence of structural faults
is observed in the figure. The colors represent the
variability in shear-stress magnitudes. Red indicates
regions of high shear. Blue indicates regions with low
shear. The orientation of the maximum horizontal stress
is shown with straight line segments. The change in
orientation of these lines from location to location is an
indication of the change in stress orientation. Changes
in stress orientation are rapid along regions with strong
structural features: faults, and regions with high
curvature. Changes in stress orientation are more
gradual elsewhere. The fact that the local stress
orientation can vary in relation to the global stress
direction is of great importance for well placement, for
preventing near-wellbore fracture complexity and for the
overall efficiency of the stimulation treatment.
Unfortunately, this information is typically not known
and assumptions of uniform stress direction are made
based on regional stress trends.
Fig. 12. Variability in stress magnitude and orientation
mapped on the top surface of the Haynesville shale unit.
Figure 13 shows the variability in the horizontal
stress contrast. Dark blue regions are regions with no
horizontal stress contrast. Regions with light blue to red
colors are regions with increasing horizontal stress
contrast. Results show that the horizontal stress contrast
is maximum in the neighborhood of faults. Magenta
colors are regions of nearly isotropic horizontal stress
regimes, where the stress ratio tends to one.
Fig. 13. Variation of horizontal stress anisotropy in
percentage, Top of Haynesville. Beyond stress directionality,
stress magnitude anisotropy reflects in the subsequent
complexity and tortuosity of a hydraulic fracture. The controls
giving rise to excess stress anisotropy in the Haynesville are a
complex combination of high horizontal stiffness and
structural features.
Figure 14 shows a comparison of measured and
calculated fracture closure pressures (i.e, the minimum
horizontal stress). The closure pressure data was
interpolated with Gaussian krigging algorithm, with a
lateral variability pattern that mostly depends on
distance. Via geomechanical simulations, one can take
into account additional features affecting the stress state
that would otherwise be neglected, and although the
background stress state is similar (as a result of well
calibrations), we recreate a stress variability pattern
resulting from complex interactions between material
properties and subsurface geometries. Hence, we try to
predict inter-well stress states by means of mechanics as
opposed distance driven interpolation methods.
Fig. 14. Top: Fracture closure pressure measured at 27
locations and interpolated to region. Bottom: Simulated
fracture closure pressure. The gradient values range from 0.87
psi/ft (blue) to 1.35 psi/ft (red). At locations where
measurements are available both images show the same
reading as a result from a calibration process.
Figure 15 shows the variability in the minimum
horizontal stress gradient along a cross section in the
model, after stress calibration. Localized regions with
low stress contrast (blue) and high stress contrast
(orange) regions are mapped. The image indicates a
high and localized variability in the minimum horizontal
stress resulting from the high degree of heterogeneity in
the system and the associated vertical and lateral
variability of material properties. The process of
classification of rock units based on their texture and
composition, which is detected quantitatively from the
measured data, allows us to represent this variability
reliably (to the resolution of the data) and obtain high
confidence representation of properties along the region
of interest.
The colors represent the normalized, absolute, stress
magnitude change along the vertical axis. The
representation is a relative indicator of stress contrast
between depositional layers, rock classes, and proxy for
the variability in the minimum horizontal stress that a
fracture would experience as it grows in the vertical
direction, upwards and downwards, from the wellbore.
The calculation links all mechanical interactions
between different rock properties, different pore
pressures, changes in vertical confinement, and the
presence of tectonic strains, and thus provides a true
representation of the in-situ stress. This is in contrast
with calculations that include only the elastic response to
a passively loaded basin.

Fig. 15. Final evaluation of the variability in the stress, after
stress calibration. An example from a cross section in the
model is shown. The colors represent the normalized,
absolute, stress magnitude change along the vertical axis
gradient. Low to high normalized stresses (from blue to
orange) are mapped.
4. COMPLETION QUALITY MAPPING
Completion quality defines the number of conditions
required to ascertain economic production. That is,
given that we have ascertained the distribution of
reservoir quality, we want to know if the regions with
high reservoir quality conditions can be contacted with
adequate surface area for production, and whether the
created surface area would sustain sufficient fracture
conductivity over time, during production, and as
subjected to rock-fluid interactions and increasing
closure stress. Because of the above concerns, the
analysis of completion quality includes the assessment
of a variety of conditions that then have to be integrated
into an evaluation of distribution of completion quality.
Once this is completed, the problem of identifying the
easy targets becomes an easier and manageable task.
These are the regions in the play where reservoir quality
and completion quality exists. Identifying the regions of
low potential is also easy and manageable. These are the
regions with no reservoir quality, independent of the
conditions of completion quality. Finally, the secondary
potential of the play can also be identified. These are
regions posing with good to high reservoir quality but
with deficient completion quality properties. In these,
improving completion quality via understanding the rock
and changing field practices to accommodate to the local
conditions creates an opportunity for expanding the
producible reserves.
In practice Completion Quality requirements of
surface area and fracture conductivity can be evaluated
by understanding the conditions of fracture containment,
by understanding the rock fabric, and by understanding
rock mechanics properties, including rock-fluid
sensitivity. Fracture containment within the high
reservoir quality rock provides the condition for
developing surface area in the reservoir, as a function of
the volume of treatment pumped. Rock fabric is
typically responsible for fracture branching and the
development of additional surface area per unit reservoir
volume. It is also responsible for exposing directions of
weakness that may fully control fracture propagation and
may minimize the created surface area or move the
contact away from the high reservoir quality region.
Thus, understanding the rock fabric, in its extent and
orientation, and in relation to the in-situ stress,
magnitude and orientation, is important. Anisotropic
elastic properties and rock fabric play a role in defining
fracture width and this affects the conditions of proppant
transport. Finally, surface hardness, proppant
embedment, loss of fracture conductivity and the effects
of fluid-rock interactions on the previous can be well
defined by laboratory experiments. Thus, for first pass
analysis, it is prudent to start the analysis of Completion
Quality Analysis with an assessment of fracture
containment, rock fabric and rock (mechanical)
competence. Additional details of completion quality
assessment, for example the constriction that occurs at
the near-wellbore, in contrast to the far-field, will be
introduced as a subsequent analysis and based on
comparison to well production and field practices.
Fig. 16. Distribution of HRA rock classes within a seismic
cross section. Results are plotted from the base of the
Haynesville unit to a region above the top of the upper-Bossier
unit.
In previous work [7] we showed that there are six
dominant rock classes in the Haynesville that are
recognized with log measurements via their distinct
combinations of texture and composition, over an area of
7,185 square miles. Geologically these developed
because of their particular location in the basin in
relation to the sources of mineral constituents, organic
constituents, the local environments that developed and
the interaction with living organisms. The details of this
differentiation are the subject of a separate paper1. The
seismic data extends over 256 square miles in a region
that is predominantly representative of one of the rock
classes. This rock class (purple – Figure 16) is uniquely
recognized by the log data and by the seismic data.
While the logs, and the cores, within the region with
seismic coverage, also recognizes the presence of 5 other
rock classes, these are thinly distributed and do not
1
Sonia Marino et al., 2013. Integration of log-defined rock
classification with detail geologic study helps understanding the
regional geologic setting of the Haynesville-and Bossier shale plays.
AAPG Annual Convention & Exhibition – 19-22 May 2013,
Pittsburgh.
represent a significant volume. As a consequence, the
seismic data recognizes only one unit which is seen to be
uniform across the extent of the seismic cube. The
purple class has good reservoir quality properties. Thus,
the only lateral variability to reservoir quality across the
region studied is due to changes in thickness.
Similarly, within the Haynesville unit (purple
class) there is uniformity in mechanical properties, rock
fabric and in-situ stress, except for regions with
structural changes and curvature. The important
variability, however, arises due to the units above the Fig. 17. Minimum horizontal stress difference between the
high reservoir quality rock and due to containment of various units, relative to the Haynesville shale. Blue indicates
lack off in these units. no difference, red indicates higher difference.
The underlying unit to the Haynesville shale (the Figure 18 shows the distribution of the Olive
Smackover limestone) was not included in the study. rock class over the Haynesville shale unit. Figure 19
However, field evidence suggests that this unit provides shows the evaluation of containment associated to stress
a strong containment for fracture downward growth. contrast and mechanical layering (i.e., small differences
Upward fracture containment was evaluated based on the in minimum horizontal stress mapped within the olive
detailed representation of the stress variability in the rock class). We also conducted two additional analyses
system. As mentioned previously, results from core to evaluate the strength of the rock fabric along the
geology studies, and microseismic measurements region above the Haynesville shale. Ant tracks analysis
indicate that mechanical layering is the dominant was used to evaluate the frequency and intensity of
mechanism affecting fracture containment within the planes of weakness in the direction of layering. The
seismic volume, this effect was also introduced in the analysis was conducted on the seismic data without the
model, to define the combined effect of rock layering information of the rock classes. Results confirmed the
and stress contrast on the overall effect on fracture presence of weak layering and thus the tendency of
height growth. containment in the region associated to the olive rock
class. We subsequently conducted a separate normal
Stress simulations indicate that vertical changes
vector field analysis, to define layering. Results
in the horizontal stresses across the units above the
provided strongly similar results. Three separate
Haynesville shale (purple class) were small (Figure 17).
evaluations confirmed the presence of strong layering
This suggested that stress contrast alone was not likely
and fracture containment was confirmed by
to be a dominant control to vertical height growth
microseismic data and by the consistency of good well
containment. However, observations from microseismic
production over these areas.
monitoring suggested that there was containment in
regions where the Haynesville rock class was overlain
by the olive rock class. Because the olive class rock
existed only at the seismic scale and was a reflection of
interlamination between two classes present at the log-
scale (red and black) [7], we interpreted this as an
indication that fracture containment was due to
mechanical layering in the Olive rock class.
Comparison to production data in the study area
confirmed the observation that regions of the
Haynesville reservoir underlying the olive rock class had
better containment and better production than regions
underlying other rock classes.

Fig. 18. Distribution of olive rock class over the Haynesville

shale as an indication that fracture containment due to
mechanical layering.

Fig. 19. Distribution of regions of high stress contrast within
the olive class rock, above the Haynesville.
Figure 20. Distribution of regions with high completion
quality (blue). Analysis was conducted based on ant tracks, to
define layering propensity in the horizontal direction.
Figure 21. Distribution of regions with high completion
quality (orange) showing wells with high production (black
dots). Analysis was conducted based on seismic normal
vector field analysis.
The olive class is defined by interlayering of the red and
black rock classes. Both of these are defined at the log
scale and both of these have complete characterization of
mechanical properties, including tensile strength, surface
hardness, and sensitivity to fluids. The purple class
(Haynesville shale) is similarly represented with the
same type of data. Thus the goal of defining completion
quality based on stress, rock fabric and mechanical
properties was met, and the results align strongly to the
known distribution of well production in the study area.
The best producing wells in the study area consistently
occur in regions overlaid by the olive rock class with
similar vintage completion styles.
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The following summary and conclusions emerge
from this work:
 We describe the use of a Seismic for
Unconventionals workflow and the development of a
Heterogeneous Earth Model (HEM) for field scale
geomechanical modeling of a large region (256
square miles) of the Haynesville shale play.
 Seismic for Unconventionals allows us to integrate
data across scales (seismic, well-log, and core data)
to evaluate the variability in reservoir quality and
completion quality properties and ascertain the
production potential of the region.
 The HEM model, once constructed, is uploaded to a
large scale finite element model (FEM), for
evaluation of local variability in stress magnitudes
and stress directions.
 The stress model is calibrated to a large number of
fracture closure stress measurements over multiple
wells.
 Identifying rock classes quantitatively based on data
allows us to define a rock class model at the log
scale and the seismic scale. Each rock class is
associated to a rock physics model that relates the
measured properties on core to the seismic attributes,
and allows us to propagate these measured
properties across the seismic data
 Reservoir quality and Completion quality are
identified on a class by class basis by understanding
the following properties: Hydrocarbon filled
porosity, permeability, organic content, maturation
and pore pressure, for reservoir quality; and stress
distribution, rock fabric and mechanical properties,
for completion quality.
 The Haynesville shale unit with purple rock class
color is uniform in properties and represents a high
reservoir quality over the region under study.
 Vertical changes in the horizontal stresses across the
various rock units above the Haynesville unit were
small. This suggested that stress contrast was not the
dominant control on fracture containment. This
resulted from a combination of small horizontal
stress contrast and the presence of strong mechanical
layering in the Olive rock class.
 The Haynesville reservoir underlying the olive rock
class provides the best conditions of reservoir
quality and completion quality in the study area
 More than 75% of the best producing wells in this
region of the play are located in the region
underlying the olive rock class. This data confirms
the analysis.
8. Zhang, J., Wieseneck, J. SPE 145964-MS Challenges
and Surprises of Abnormal Pore Pressures in the Shale
Gas Formations. SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, 30 October-2 November 2011, Denver,
Colorado, USA.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Schlumberger for supporting
this effort and for permission to publish. We also wish
to acknowledge the technical contribution of the
participants of the Seismic for Unconventionals project:
Lars Sonneland, Hilde Borgos, Geir Vaaland Dahl,
Martin Haege, Patrick Gathogo, John Petriello, and
Sanket Kohle. We would also like to acknowledge
Encana Oil and Gas Co. and CGG Veritas for providing
access to their expertise and data. In particular we
would like to thank the following people from Encana
Oil and Gas for their participation in this project and
their technical contribution: Rich Newhart, Phuong Le,
Bret Rowland, and Mike Caputi (the latter two no longer
with Encana).
REFERENCES
1. Herwanger, J., Koutsabeloulis, N., Seismic
Geomechanics: How to Build and Calibrate
Geomechanical Models with 3D and 4D Seismic Data,
2011. EAGE Publications.
2. Graham, J., Houlsby, G.T. Anisotropic Elasticity of
Natural Clay (1983). Geotechnique 33, No. 2, 165-180.
3. Sengupta, M. Dai, J., Volterrani,S., Dutta, N., Rao, N.,
Al-Qadeeri, B., Kidambi, V., Building a seismic driven
3D geomechanical model in a deep carbonate field,
2011, SEG Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, USA
4. Hammes, U., H. Hamlin, S., Ewing, T.E., 2011,
Geologic analysis of the Upper Jurassic Haynesville
Shale in east Texas and west Louisiana. AAPG
Bulletin, v. 95, No. 10, pp. 1643-1666.
5. Suarez-Rivera, R., D. Handwerger, A. Rodriguez
Herrera, Shanna Herring, Kimberly Stevens, S. Marino,
D. Paddock. In this conference: 47th US Rock
Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in San
Francisco, CA, USA, 23-26 June 2013.
6. Sayers, C.M., Le Calvez, J., Characterization of
Microseismic Data in Gas Shales Using the Radius of
Gyration Tensor, 2010 SEG Annual Meeting, Denver,
Colorado, USA, 17 – 22 October, 2010.
7. Marino S., S. Herring, K. Stevens, D. Handwerger, M.
Caputi and R. Suarez-Rivera, 2013 Integration of log-
defined rock classification with detail geologic study
helps understanding the regional geologic setting of the
Haynesville-and Bossier shale plays. AAPG Annual
Convention & Exhibition - 19-22 May 2013,
Pittsburgh.