Rock Engineering and Rock Mechanics: Structures in and on

Rock Masses Alejano, Perucho, Olalla & Jimnez (Eds)

2014 Taylor & Francis Group, London, 978-1-138-00149-7

Shale geomechanics: Optimal multi-stage hydraulic fracturing

design for shale and tight reservoirs

J. Leem & J. Reyna

Halliburton

ABSTRACT: Developing resource shale and/or tight plays can be extensive and demanding, particularly when
determining an optimal multi-stage fracture stimulation design. A common approach has been to duplicate the
so-called Barnett design, such as using a slick water fracturing fluid with a low concentration of proppant.
However, it has been proven that the Barnett design was inefficient in many other fields, such as the Haynesville,
Bakken, and Eagle Ford. A recent trend for developing resource shale and tight plays has been to attain an
analog field, duplicate the design optimized in the analog field, and further optimize its design by trial and error.
However, even this approach requires a considerable learning curve and associated costs to determine the optimal
multi-stage fracturing design. Shale geomechanics can help minimize this learning curve and provide optimal
fracture design recommendations based on geomechanical analysis combined with geological, geophysical, and
petrophysical knowledge.

1 INTRODUCTION 2 GEOMECHANICAL ROLES IN

After successful development of the Barnett shale,
other resource shale and tight plays have been commer-
cialized all over North America, and now extending to
Central/South America, Europe, China, Australia, and
Russia. The success of resource shale and tight plays
has mainly derived from technological advancements
during the past 10 years, including large volume multi-
stage hydraulic fracturing in horizontal completions,
passive microsiesmic monitoring, and expanded use
of 3D seismic of the fields.
These recent technological advancements in
resource shale and tight plays present unique engi-
neering challenges with respect to geomechanics,
such as long, horizontal well drilling and comple-
tion methods that allow complex multi-stage hydraulic
fracture stimulation design. Exceptionally long hori-
zontal drilling can create significant wellbore stability
issues, which are stress-induced and time-dependent,
from fluid-formation interaction. Complex multi-
stage hydraulic fracture designs require extensive
geomechanical information for optimization, such as
selection of well placement, horizontal well direction,
stage isolation method, stage interval selection, perfo-
ration locations, and fracturing fluid system/proppant
selection.
Such demanding challenges can be addressed,
fully or partially, by integrating all geomechanical
information obtained from geological, geophysical,
petrophysical, and laboratory data. Geophysical and
petrophysical analyses of natural fractures and faults
can also be used during the final multi-stage hydraulic
fracture design.
SHALE/TIGHT PLAYS
The role geomechanics plays in resource shale and
tight gas/oil plays continues throughout the entire life
of an unconventional reservoir. Additionally, major
interests from emerging fields, such as those in
Central/South America, Europe, China, Australia,
and Russia, are being explored and placed in well
planning/development phases.
2.1 Exploration phase
The role of geomechanics begins during the explo-
ration phase:
Building 1D/3D geomechanical model
Core analysis considering shale anisotropy and
heterogeneity
Pore pressure and in-situ stress analysis
Formation mechanical property estimation
Building a mechanical earth model as a stand-alone
and/or a part of an earth model and/or reservoir
model
Building a geomechanical model is an essential
step toward comprehending an unconventional field
and performing drilling and completion optimization
during later stages. The first and upmost step during
the process of building a geomechanical model for a
resource shale play is defining anisotropy and hetero-
geneity of the shale (Figure 1), which can be used later
for defining fracability and optimizing multi-stage
fracture design. Table 1 demonstrates anisotropy of

1403
 Table 2a. Average stimulation data from US shale and tight
plays (Chong et al. 2010).

Barnett Haynesville Marcellus

TVD, ft 7,000 to 10,000 to 6,500 to

8,000 13,500 7,500
Horizontal 3,000 to 4,000 to 4,000 to
length (ft) 5,000 7,600 5,500
Number of 4 to 6 10 to 18 6 to 19
Figure 1. Anisotropy and heterogeneity of shale (Buller stages
et al. 2010). bbl/Stage 17,100 10,600 10,000
lbm 350,000 350,000 400,000
Table 1. Elastic properties showing anisotropy of shale from prop/Stage
the Barnett shale (Buller et al. 2010). Rate 70 to 80 70 80
(bbl/min)
Effective Effective Average psi 3,000 to 10,500 to 6,500 to
confining mean Vertical 5,000 14,000 8,700
Depth pressure stress Density Poissons Average 0.57 2.5 2.5
(ft) (psi) (psi) (g/cc) ratio lbm/gal
Fluid type FR-water FR-water FR-water
10,617 0 6946 2.593 0.26 linear gel linear gel linear gel
10,629 2500 6453 2.559 0.23 crosslink crosslink
10,641 2500 6362 2.547 0.22 Proppant 100-mesh 100-mesh 100-mesh
10,661 2500 6672 2.522 0.26 type 40/70 sand 40/70 ISP 40/70 sand
10,686 2500 5169 2.524 0.25 30/50 sand 40/70 RCP 30/50 sand
10,766 2500 6764 2.543 0.24 30/50 ISP
10,819 5000 11501 2.673 0.3

Vertical Horizontal
Youngs Horizontal Youngs
Depth modulus Poissons modulus Completion optimization: reservoir-specific multi-
(ft) (106 psi) ratio (106 psi) stage hydraulic fracturing design
Horizontal wellbore direction
10,617 5.499 0.24 6.656 Defining fracability and hydraulic fracture
10,629 5.02 0.21 7.352
geometry
10,641 4.478 0.21 7.251
10,661 4.069 0.21 7.409 Fault reactivation risk assessment
10,686 3.936 0.21 7.209 Optimal lateral well spacing and hydraulic
10,766 4.48 0.23 7.57 fracture interval
10,819 9.911 0.29 10.286 Pinpointing optimal hydraulic fracture (i.e.
perforation) location
Drilling optimization in resource shale and tight
plays is similar to that of conventional plays, except
the Barnett shale, that is 30% higher Youngs modulus with respect to time-dependent wellbore stability
in the horizontal direction (e.g. parallel to bedding). because of exceptionally long horizontal well drilling.
Details of the completion optimization, mostly multi-
stage fracture design optimization, are discussed in the
2.2 Well planning and development phase following section.
The role of geomechanics during the well planning
and development and exploration phases can be sum-
marized into two categories, drilling optimization 3 MULTI-STAGE HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
and completion optimization, especially in multi-stage DESIGN OPTIMIZATION
hydraulic fracturing optimization:
3.1 Minimizing the learning curve
Drilling optimization
Finding the optimal multi-stage fracturing design can
Wellbore stability analysis (e.g. shear failure, be a very costly process in emerging resource shale and
time-dependent, casing shear, critically stressed tight plays. A common approach was once to dupli-
fracture/fault) cating the design of the Barnett play, such as a slick
Wellbore trajectory analysis water fracturing fluid system with a low concentration
Optimal drilling design: mud weight, mud of proppant (Table 2a and b). However, it has been
chemistry, bit selections, trajectory, proper proven that the Barnett design was ineffective in many
landing of the lateral, data collection during other areas, and other stimulation designs were sought,
drilling, casing, etc. such as in the Haynesville, Bakken, and Eagle Ford

1404
Table 2b. Average stimulation data from US shale and tight
plays (Chong et al. 2010).

Woodford Bakken Eagle Ford

TVD, ft 7,000 to 7,450 to 6,000 to

13,000 11,010 13,000
Horizontal 3,000 to 4,000 to 3,000 to
length (ft) 5,000 10,000 4,500
Number of 6 to 12 5 to 37 7 to 17
stages
bbl/Stage 17,000 1,800 12,500
lbm/Stage 350,000 150,000 250,000
Rate 70 to 90 15 to 20 35 to 100
(bbl/min)
Average psi 5,000 to 2,800 to 9,000 to
13,000 8,000 12,500
Average 1.0 2.0 to 2.5 1.0 to 1.5
lbm/gal
Fluid type Fr-water Hybrid Fr-water Figure 2. Hydraulic fracture generation based on horizontal
liner gel crosslink linear gel stress direction and well direction modified from Solimon
crosslink et al. 2008.
Proppant 100-mesh 100-mesh 100-mesh
type 40/70 sand 20/40 sand 40/70 sand
40/70 CRC 40/70 sand 30/50 sand
20/40 ceramic

(Table 2a and b). A recent trend when developing

new fields is identifying an analog field, duplicating
the multi-stage fracture stimulation design used in the
analog field, and optimizing its design by trial and
error.
However, even this approach requires a consider-
able learning curve and associated costs to determine
the optimal multi-stage fracturing design by trial and
error.

3.2 Defining horizontal well direction
The first step of designing a multi-stage fracture stimu-
lation plan is defining the horizontal well direction for
the intended multi-stage fracturing design. Based on
the planned fracture design, e.g. longitudinal or trans-
verse (Figure 2), the horizontal well direction should
be determined. The longitudinal hydraulic fracture
design is good for moderate to higher permeabil-
ity reservoirs, while the transverse fracture design is
suitable for most of resource shale and tight gas/oil
reservoirs. For instance, the horizontal well direction
should be the direction of minimum horizontal stress
vector (Sh) to achieve transverse hydraulic fractures
(Figure 2). If the SH (maximum horizontal stress) and
Sh vectors are not defined correctly, created hydraulic
fractures can develop complexities by reorienting
parallel to the SH direction. Problems include unde-
sired multiple fractures, creating near-well tortuosity,
deceasing near-well fracture conductivity (Figure 2).
This can lead to increasing treating pressure and even
inducing early screenouts. The local direction of SH
to achieve proper transverse hydraulic fractures can
Figure 3. An example of micro-seismic monitoring data
(Soliman et al. 2008). SH vector direction is clearly identified
as NE-SW, parallel to the hydraulic fracture plane orientation.
be defined from wellbore image logs, oriented cross-
dipole sonic logs, and/or micro-seismic monitoring
data (Figure 3).
3.3 Defining fracability and hydraulic fracture
geometry
Once proper horizontal well direction is determined
based on the intended multi-stage fracturing design
(e.g. transverse), one must define the so-called fra-
cability of the resource shale and/or tight reservoir
formations. The term fracability has not yet been
fully defined. However, it would control geometry of
hydraulic fractures from a planner to complex network
(Figure 4). As its complexity increases from planar
to complex, its reservoir contact and non-propped
fracture conductivity increases; this is anticipated in
the hydraulic fracturing design. Controlling factors of

1405
Figure 4. Hydraulic fracture geometry based on stress
anisotropy and brittleness of resource shale and tight reservoir
formations.
fracability and consequent fracture geometry would be
geostresses and rock (fracture) mechanical properties.
The geostresses of in-situ stresses, which can be
defined in geomechanical analyses, can be simplified
as stress anisotropy (e.g. Equation 1):
where HSAI = horizontal stress anisotropy; SH =
maximum horizontal stress; and Sh = minimum hori-
zontal stress. Higher stress anisotropy means hydraulic
fractures have a preference to grow in the direction
of SH. Lower stress anisotropy means hydraulic frac-
tures have less tendency to grow in the direction of SH,
which can generate more complex hydraulic fractures,
such as a complex network.
Rock (fracture) mechanical properties for fracabil-
ity can be represented by the concept of brittleness.
The term brittleness also has not yet been fully defined
(or quantified). However, it is commonly represented
using a Brittleness index, which is a combination of
Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio (Figure 5). That
is, a rock with higher Youngs modulus and lower Pois-
sons ratio will be more brittle (i.e. will have a higher
brittleness index). A higher brittleness index means
hydraulic fractures have more of a tendency to grow
complex network fractures.
In summary, the fracability and resulting hydraulic
fracture geometry can be defined by the stress an-
isotropy and the brittleness index of resource shale
and/or tight reservoir formations.The defined fracabil-
ity and hydraulic fracture geometry is the key to opti-
mizing multi-stage fracturing design in the formations,
which is discussed in the following sections.
3.4 Optimal hydraulic fracture fluid system
selection
An optimal fracturing fluid system and proppant
selection can be decided by defining fracability
and hydraulic fracture geometry type, which can be
estimated from stress anisotropy and brittleness of
resource shale and tight reservoirs (Figure 4). Based
1406
Figure 5. Brittleness index estimated fromYoungs modulus
and Poissons ratio (after Rickman et al. 2008).
Figure 6. Selection of fracturing fluid system and proppant
based on stress anisotropy and brittleness of resource shale
and tight reservoir formations (after Mullen et al. 2010).
on the estimated hydraulic fracture geometry type (e.g.
planar to complex network), an optimal fracturing fluid
system and proppant volume, type, and size can be
selected (e.g. crosslinked gel to slick water system).
Figure 6 demonstrates a guideline for selecting an opti-
mal fracturing fluid system and proppant based on
stress anisotropy, brittleness, and estimated fracture
geometry).
3.5 Defining optimal fracture spacing to enhance
fracture complexity and conductivity
Finding the optimal perforation interval between
hydraulic fracturing stages (i.e. fracture spacing) can
be crucial for artificially enhancing complex network
fractures and fracture conductivity in some resource
shale and tight plays, particularly with the planar
form of hydraulic fracture geometry (Figure 4). The
effects of fracture spacing, i.e. enhancing complex net-
work fractures and non-propped fracture conductivity,
are universal for all the multi-stage fracturing tech-
niques (e.g. sequence, zipper, etc.). However, alter-
native sequence fracturing, commonly known as the
Texas two-step, can be the best example for the effects
of optimal fracture spacing (Figure 7). Once fracturing
Stages 1 and 2 are performed, hydraulic fractures are
generated with limited reservoir contact and fracture
conductivity normal to the horizontal well (direction
of the Sh), e.g. complex planar in Figure 4. However,
the fracturing Stages 1 and 2 increase stress of the
Sh direction between the two fracture stages by cre-
ating stress overlap, consequently decreasing stress
Figure 7. Alternating sequence fracturing (ASF), com-
monly called Texas two-step fracturing (Stanojcic & Rispler
2010).

Figure 8. Stress overlap increase caused by the third (center)

anisotropy between the two fracture locations. There-
fracture in alternating sequence fracturing.
fore, a fracture in Stage 3 could create more complex
fractures, such as the complex network fractures in
Figure 4. Consequently, fracturing Stage 3 would cre-
ate more reservoir contact and better non-propped
fracture conductivity normal to the horizontal well.
The optimal fracture spacing can often be derived
from the micro-seismic monitoring data (Figure 3)
by defining stimulated reservoir volume (SRV). Or,
numerical stress analysis can also delimit the opti-
mal fracture spacing from consideration of stress Figure 9. Multi-stage fracturimg design concept along hor-
overlapping between each fracturing stage. Figure 8 izontal well by finding better reservoir quality and fracability.
demonstrates an example of an ASF operation, in
which the third fracture is located in the middle of
the previous two fractures. All the rock mechanical
properties and geostresses are obtained from geome-
chanical analyses of Central Europe, which assumes a
brittleness index of 50% and strike-slip faulting stress
regime (i.e. SH > overburden > Sh).
The numerical stress analysis shows the stress in
the Sh direction (normal to the hydraulic fracture
planes) increases approximately 55%, and the con-
sequent stress anisotropy (Equation 1) deceases from
95 to 30%. Also, the analysis discloses the increase
of treating pressure (e.g. more than 6%) for the third Figure 10. Comparison between typical even-spacing per-
fracture to create a similar fracture volume. However, foration (black circles) and pinpointed perforation (red
the treating pressure does not account for potential triangles) at high fracability area (Stegent et al. 2010).
complex fractures, which can be created. That is, the
actual treating pressure increase can be higher associ- minimizing costs can be achieved by combining petro-
ated with potential complex fractures created between physical reservoir characteristics and geomechanical
the previous two fracture stages (Figure 7). The effects fracability analysis along each horizontal well.
of potential complex fractures are currently being Figure 10 demonstrates differences in typical equal-
investigated using the discrete element method. spacing perforation (black circles) and pin-pointed
perforation (red triangles) in high fracability areas.
Figure 11 shows a relationship between the brittleness
index and post-frac production log along a horizontal
well, which displays a clear trend of better production
3.6 Reservoir-specific hydraulic fracturing strategy
in the higher brittleness areas. In short, optimal pro-
Because of anisotropy and heterogeneity of resource duction for each horizontal well can be achieved by
shale and tight reservoir formations (Figure 1), combining petrophysical and geomechanical analysis,
reservoir-specific multi-stage fracturing design strat- which uncovers sweet spots and preferred hydraulic
egy is necessary (Figure 9). The strategy is just a fracturing points (e.g. more fracable area). Geophysi-
common sense approach to promote the best possi- cal and petrophysical analyses on natural fractures and
ble production by finding sweet spots and a better faults can also be used during the final multi-stage
fracability area. That is, optimizing production and hydraulic fracture design.

1407

Figure 11. Post-frac production log overlaying a brittleness
index along the horizontal well (Buller et al. 2010).
4 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS
Geomechanical roles in developing resource shale and
tight plays are discussed. While the role of geomechan-
ics is continuous throughout the life of unconventional
reservoirs, it is focused during exploration and well
planning/development phases, especially when opti-
mizing multi-stage hydraulic fracturing design. A
workflow for optimizing multi-stage fracturing design,
including defining horizontal well direction, optimal
fracture spacing, and fracturing fluid system selection,
was presented to enhance production and reduce costs
by minimizing learning curves in emerging resource
shale and tight plays.
Further investigation is currently being conducted
quantifying fracability and performing numerical
stress analysis for complex network fractures using
the discrete element method.
1408
REFERENCES
Buller, D., Hughes, S., Market, J., et al. 2010. Petrophysical
evaluation for enhancing hydraulic stimulation in horizon-
tal shale gas wells. Paper SPE 132990 presented in SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence
Italy, 1922 September.
Buller, D., Suparman, F., Kwong, S., et al. 2010. A novel
approach to shale-gas evaluation using a cased-hole pulsed
neutron tool. Paper presented at the SPWLA 51st Annual
Logging Symposium, Perth, Australia, 1923 June.
Chong, K.K., Grieser, W.V., Passman, A. et al. 2010. A com-
pletions guide book to shale-play development: a review
of successful approaches toward shale-play stimulation
in the last two decades. Paper SPE 133874 presented at
the Canadian Unconventional Resources and International
Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Canada, 1921 October.
Mullen, J., Lowery, J., and Nwabuoku, K.C. 2010. Lessons
Learned Developing the Eagle Ford Shale. Paper SPE
138446 presented at the SPE Tight Gas Completions
Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 23 November
2010.
Rickman, R., Mullen, M., Petre, E., Grieser, B., & Kundert,
D. 2008. A practical use of shale petrophysics for stimula-
tion design optimization: all shale plays are not clones of
the Barnett shale. Paper SPE 115258 presented at Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado,
USA, 21-24 September.
Soliman, M.Y., East, L., & Adams, D. 2008. Geomechan-
ics aspects of multiple fracturing of horizontal fracturing
and vertical wells. SPE Drilling and Completions. 23 (3):
217228.
Stegent, N., Wagner, A.L., Mulletn, J. et al. 2010. Engineering
a successful fracture-stimulation treatment in the Eagle
Ford shale. Paper SPE 136183 presented at the SPE Tight
Gas Completions Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA,
23 November.