SPE-171590-MS

Geomechanical Characterization of an Unconventional Reservoir with

Microseismic Fracture Monitoring Data and Unconventional Fracture
Modeling
Qiuguo Li, SPE; Alexey Zhmodik and Drazenko Boskovic, Schlumberger

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/CSUR Unconventional Resources Conference - Canada held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 September – 2
October 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Hydraulic fracturing is often the most effective option to stimulate production in unconventional
reservoirs to economic levels. Results of stimulation can be mixed unless the hydraulic fracture design
correctly interprets the geological and geomechanical setting of the field. In fields with naturally fractured
reservoirs, the interpretation is particularly critical because natural fractures strongly influence the final
stimulated rock volume. An accurate description of the natural fracture network and the geomechanical
properties and stresses of the rock provide the information to optimize stimulation treatment in naturally
fractured unconventional reservoirs. However, the uncertainty in some of this information can jeopardize
the value of the modeling and the success of the stimulation. One of the key geomechanical parameters,
which are often poorly constrained, is the maximum horizontal stress magnitude. Microseismic data are
able to map the stimulated rock volume during hydraulic fracturing operations. These data can be used to
verify the accuracy of the fracturing treatment modeling.
Here, we present a case study characterizing geomechanical parameters of an unconventional reservoir
using a novel technique that includes calibrated mechanical earth models. The technique reduces
uncertainty in the geological and geomechanical parameters used to design hydraulic fracture operations,
improving the prediction of the final stimulated rock volume.

Introduction
Due to the extremely low permeabilities in most unconventional reservoirs, horizontal wells and multi-
stage hydraulic fracturing stimulations have become the necessary completions in such reservoirs. Natural
fractures exist in most unconventional reservoirs and these natural fractures interact with hydraulic
fractures. Therefore, instead of creating biwing planar fractures while fracturing unconventional reser-
voirs, complex fracture networks are often created. The creation of complex fracture networks effectively
increases the stimulated reservoir volume and productivity.
Geometry of conventional biwing hydraulic fractures is greatly affected by rock elastic properties and
in situ stresses in the reservoir formation and the bounding formations. Because fractures tend to
propagate against the minimum in situ stress, which is the least resistant, the orientation of the minimum
2 SPE-171590-MS

in situ stress determines the fracture plane strike. Mineback hydraulic fracture experiments, laboratory
hydraulic fracture experiments and numerical simulations (Simonson et al. 1977; Warpinski et al. 1980;
Teufel and Clark 1984) have shown that minimum in situ stress contrast between the reservoir and
bounding formations is the most important parameter controlling fracture height containment. Some other
mechanisms for controlling fracture height include Young’s modulus contrast between formations (Gu
and Siebrits 2006), interfacial slip (Warpinski et al. 1998; Gu et al. 2008), composite layering effect
(Warpinski et al. 1998; Gu et al. 2008; Wolhart et al. 2004). The maximum width of a fracture held closed
by minimum in situ stress but being opened by an internal pressure equal to the minimum in situ stress
plus a net pressure can be expressed as (Smith and Shlyapobersky 2000):
(1)

where ␯ is Poisson’s ratio, d is the least dimension of the fracture, E is Young’s modulus. It shows that
the maximum fracture width is inversely proportional to the Young’s modulus of the formation.
In multistage hydraulic fracturing of horizontal wells in unconventional reservoirs, rock elastic
properties and in situ stresses not only affect the dimension of hydraulic fractures, but also the mechanical
interactions between the hydraulic fractures and natural fractures, and therefore affect the complexity of
the created fracture network and the total stimulated rock volume. Although maximum horizontal stress
has little impact in planar fracture geometry, it has a significant impact on the complexity of a complex
fracture network created in unconventional reservoirs. The complexity of the fracture network is related
to the behavior of a hydraulic fracture when reaching a natural fracture, crossing or noncrossing.
Investigations based on linear elastic fracture mechanics and laboratory hydraulic fracture experiments
provided criteria and validations of hydraulic fracture crossing natural fracture at orthogonal (Renshaw
and Pollar 1995) and nonorthogonal angles (Gu and Weng 2010). Besides the angle between the hydraulic
fracture and the natural fracture, the ratio between the maximum horizontal stress and the minimum
horizontal stress is the most important factor in determining the hydraulic fracture crossing or noncrossing
the natural fracture.
In planar fracture growth, the net pressure is roughly proportional to E3/4. Complex fracture network
simulation using an unconventional fracture simulator shows that the net pressure is dictated by horizontal
stress anisotropy, which is the difference between the maximum and minimum horizontal stresses, and
Young’s modulus has negligible effect on net pressure (Cipolla et al. 2011). This suggests that the net
pressure in hydraulic fracturing of unconventional reservoirs is dominated by the interaction between the
hydraulic fracture and natural fracture. However, the relationship between fracture width and Young’s
modulus is still honored in complex fracture growth. Lower Young’s modulus results in wider average
fracture width and less hydraulic fracture area (Cipolla et al. 2011).
Unconventional reservoirs containing relatively large clay content may demonstrate anisotropy in
elastic properties. The anisotropy is mainly due to partial alignment of anisotropic clay minerals and the
bedding-parallel lamination of organic material within the shale (Sayers 2013). Such anisotropy is most
often assumed to be transversely isotropic (TI) with an axis of rotational symmetry oriented perpendicular
to the layers (Sayers 2013). The anisotropy of elastic properties in a formation has significant impact on
the determination of horizontal stresses (Thiercelin and Plumb 1991; Higgins et al. 2008).
It is vital that hydraulic fracturing operations are optimal to maximize production from unconventional
fields and ensure an economic return. Uncertain design modelling can reduce the effectiveness of
hydraulic fracturing and subsequent production. There has been a systematic approach of constructing a
mechanical earth model in which all the necessary geomechanical parameters are defined (Plumb et al.
2000; Pallikathekathil et al. 2013). Shale anisotropy needs to be taken into consideration while construct-
ing such models in unconventional reservoirs where anisotropy of elastic properties is significant.
SPE-171590-MS 3

Geological Setting
The unconventional reservoir under investigation in this study is one of the major unconventional plays
in Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB). It is of Lower Triassic age and approximately 240
million years old. Deposited in a continental-ramp basinal setting, the formation dips from the northeast
to the southwest. The formation thickness ranges from less than 1m at the easterly subcrop to over 350m
to the west. The formation is composed of siltstone and dark grey shale, with dolomitic siltstone in the
base and fine grained sandstone towards the top. The facies is shaley in the north and west of the extent,
silty in the center and becomes coarser (sandy) in the east and south.
The formation has generally been subdivided into the upper unit and lower unit along a major flooding
surface. The upper unit consists of fine to very fine grained siltstones that were depsited in a series of
prograding packages. The entire section in the study area is gas charged. Core and cuttings data indicate
that the porosity ranges from 1% to 7% and permeability in the 0.0001 to 0.003 mD range.

Mechanical Earth Modeling

A mechanical earth model (MEM) describes rock elastic and strength properties, in situ stresses, and pore
pressure as a function of depth, referenced to a stratigraphic column (Plumb et al. 2000). A MEM can be
one dimensional if the model is constructed based on data primarily from a well. A 1D MEM is mainly
applied to wellbore-related applications. A MEM can also be three dimensional if the model is constructed
over a 3D volume of rock. A 3D MEM is mainly used for field- or reservoir-related applications.
A 1D MEM consists of continuous profiles of the following rock mechanical data and parameters along
the well trajectories:
● Formation elastic properties, including dynamic and static Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio
● Rock strength parameters, including unconfined compressive strength (UCS), friction angle, and
tensile strength
● Pore pressures
● In situ stress state, including the azimuth of the minimum horizontal stress, magnitudes of vertical
stress, and minimum and maximum horizontal stresses.
The aim of this study is reducing the uncertainty in the geological and geomechanical parameters that
are used to design hydraulic fracture treatment, ultimately improving the prediction of the final stimulated
rock volume. To achieve this, a workflow was developed and deployed in which a 1D MEM was
constructed and calibrated with measurements from three vertical wells, Wells A, B, and C. This technique
utilized the calibration of the maximum horizontal stress magnitude by matching the stimulated fracture
network dimensions, as indicated by microseismic events, with the modeled fracture network.
To compute log-derived rock elastic and strength properties and in situ stresses, wireline logs,
including compressional slowness, shear slowness, bulk density, and gamma ray in addition to petro-
physical formation evaluation results of porosity and clay volume were used. Triaxial compression tests
were performed on two core plugs from the upper unit of Well A. Since Young’s modulus is stress-
dependent, it is critical to have the confining pressure of the triaxial test to be representative of the in situ
stress condition. The confining pressure applied during the tests was 15.17 MPa, which is nearly the same
as the mean effective stress in the upper unit. This ensures that the elastic properties measured are
representative. Ultrasonic velocities were also measured in the triaxial tests. However, due to the
frequency difference between the ultrasonic measurement and sonic log measurement and different
scaling, the dynamic Young’s modulus and dynamic Poisson’s ratio obtained from the ultrasonic
measurement may not entirely agree with the dynamic properties obtained from the sonic logs. Table 1
shows the dynamic and elastic properties obtained from the two triaxial compression tests. The compar-
ison between the properties from the triaxial tests and the log-derived elastic properties is shown in Track
4 SPE-171590-MS

Table 1—DYNAMIC AND STATIC ELASTIC PROPERTIES MEASURED ON CORE PLUGS FROM TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TESTS
Depth(m) Dynamic Young’s Modulus (GPa) Dynamic Poisson’s RatioM Static Young’s Modulus (GPa) Static Poisson’s Ratio

1,791.13 49.10 0.23 38.36 0.32

1,813.31 59.14 0.18 39.10 0.31

Figure 1—1D mechanical earth model constructed for Well A. Dynamic and static elastic properties (Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio) were
calibrated based on triaxial testing data on cores; pore pressure and minimum horizontal stress were calibrated based on pore pressure measurements
from west tests and fracture closure pressure measurements, respectively.

4 and Track 5 of Fig. 1. It can be seen that there is a decreasing trend in both dynamic Young’s modulus
and static Young’s modulus in the reservoir zone and the dynamic Young’s modulus is about 40% to 80%
larger than the static Young’s modulus. The variation of Poisson’s ratio in the reservoir formation is
limited and the static Poisson’s ratio is about 50% larger than the dynamic Poisson’s ratio.
Although rock strength parameters are not directly required in hydraulic fracture designs, they are
important information to evaluate wellbore failures and can be used to constrain the magnitude of the
maximum horizontal stress and verify the consistency of a mechanical earth model. Rock strength
properties are generally correlated with rock elastic properties and/or some other formation properties
such as sonic velocity, porosity, volume of clay. Unconfined compression tests provide the measurement
of UCS if the core plugs fail in shear, instead of axial splitting, which is very common in unconfined
SPE-171590-MS 5

Table 2—PORE PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS FROM WELL TESTS

Formation Unit TVD (m) Pore Pressure (MPa) Pore Pressure Gradient (kPa/m) Well

the upper unit 1827.5 18.36 10.05 Well A

the upper unit 1881.9 23.40 12.43 Well C
the lower unit 2023.0 27.13 13.41 Well A
the lower unit 2026.8 27.14 13.39 Well A
the lower unit 2136.4 27.10 12.69 Well B
the lower unit 2008.4 29.79 14.83 Well C

Figure 2—Pore pressure distribution in the study area and the locations of the three study wells. The numbers in the figure are pore pressure gradient
values in the unit of kPa/m.

compression tests. Alternatively, multistage triaxial compression tests on a single core plug or single-stage
triaxial compression tests on several adjacent core plugs in a relatively homogeneous section provide the
measurement of UCS and friction angle. Since the triaxial tests performed on the the upper unit core plugs
were single-stage tests on single core plugs, no UCS or friction angle could be obtained from those tests.
Tensile strength can typically be obtained in laboratory from a Brazilian test, although in this study it was
not available. It is often negligible in shales. UCS and friction angle measurement from a nearly well were
used to calibrate the log-derived UCS and friction angle. Track 6 of Fig. 1 shows the log-derived UCS,
friction angle and tensile strength, which has been estimated as 10% of UCS. All these rock strength
parameters also show a decreasing trend from top to bottom of reservoir formation, partly because of the
increasing clay content with depth (Fig. 1).
Vertical stress at any point in a formation is equivalent to the weight of the formation materials above
that point, assuming no stress arching effect (Kenter et al. 1998), and was computed by integrating the
bulk density log. Pore pressure measurements from well tests were available from both the upper unit and
the lower unit in several wells (Table 2). Pore pressures in the the upper unit vary from hydrostatic to
6 SPE-171590-MS

Figure 3—Borehole breakout directions from Well A oriented caliper analysis indicating minimum horizontal stress directions. a, the upper unit; b,
the lower unit.

slightly overpressured, higher pore pressure gradients were observed in the lower unit. The distribution of
pore pressures is consistent with the pore pressure gradient distribution map in the study area (Fig. 2). The
computed pore pressures from logs and the pore pressure measurement points are shown in Track 7 of Fig.
1.
Horizontal stress direction is most commonly derived with the following methods.
1. Borehole breakouts typically cause a circular wellbore to become elliptical in the direction parallel
to the minimum principal stress direction. In a vertical well, the borehole breakout direction
indicates the minimum horizontal stress direction and the drilling-induced fracture direction
indicates the maximum horizontal stress direction. Therefore, borehole breakout and drilling-
induced fracture identified from borehole image can be used to derive horizontal stress direction.
2. In absence of borehole image, if oriented multiarm caliper logs are available, borehole breakout
direction, which is the minimum horizontal stress direction in a vertical well, can be derived from
borehole shape analysis.
3. Acoustic velocity anisotropy in a formation is typically induced by stress anisotropy or formation
intrinsic anisotropy such as fractures, formation bedding. Fast shear azimuth in a vertical well
typically indicates the maximum horizontal stress direction if high angle fractures are absent and
formations are relatively flat, isotropic, and homogeneous.
Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b show borehole breakout directions from borehole shape analysis using oriented
multiarm caliper logs from Well A. The minimum horizontal stress direction is approximately N140°E in
the the upper unit and N130°E in the lower unit. This is consistent with the regional stress direction in the
WCSB (Bell and Babcock 1986).
Horizontal stress magnitudes are most commonly calculated using well logs. There are two main types
of stress calculation models, elastic and failure stress models. The elastic stress models assume that the
stress-strain response of a fluid saturated porous rock material is linear elastic. With the assumption of
isotropic rock and uniaxial strain condition, minimum horizontal stress is related to the vertical stress
through Eq. 2
(2)
SPE-171590-MS 7

Figure 4 —Anisotropy elastic properties and horizontal stresses computed using these anisotropic elastic properties. At this particular location, the
elastic properties are not very anisotropic and therefore the horizontal stresses computed using the isotropic model and anisotropic model are similar.

where ␣ is Biot coefficient and p is pore pressure. Eq. 2 only considers the horizontal stress generated
due to gravity loading and therefore minimum and maximum horizontal stresses are equal. The effect of
lithology on horizontal stress is reflected in the Poisson’s ratio. Formations with higher Poisson’s ratio
carry higher horizontal stresses.
Anisotropic tectonic strains can be added to Eq. 2 if the uniaxial strain condition is relaxed and the
elastic stress model becomes (Thiercelin and Plumb 1991):
(3)

(4)

where ␧h is minimum horizontal strain and ␧H is maximum horizontal strain.

For transversely isotropic formations such as many shale formations, assuming the plane of isotropy
is horizontal, the elastic stress model becomes (Thiercelin and Plumb 1991):
8 SPE-171590-MS

Table 3—FRACTURE CLOSURE PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS

Formation Unit TVD (m) Fracture Closure Pressure (MPa) Fracture closure pressure Gradient (kPa/m) Well

the upper unit 1834.96 31 16.89 Well A

the upper unit 1886.49 37.4 19.83 Well C
the lower unit 2032.78 38 18.69 Well A
the lower unit 2012.47 42.9 21.32 Well C
the lower unit 2190 43 19.63 Well B
the lower unit 2196 43.8 19.95 Well B
the lower unit 2202 40.6 18.44 Well B
the lower unit 2203 42.6 19.34 Well B

(5)

(6)

where E is Young’s modulus in the plane of isotropy; is Young’s modulus normal to the plane of
isotropy, i.e. horizontal; ␯ is Poisson’s ratio in the plane of isotropy for stress acting in the plane of
isotropy; is Poisson’s for stress acting normal to the plane of isotropy, ␰ is a constant.
Failure stress models assume the rock is at critical condition of shear failure and therefore a shear
failure criterion, most commonly Mohr-Coulomb shear failure model, can be used to relate the in situ
stresses. There have been some successes in calculating horizontal stresses using such models. However,
horizontal stresses calculated using failure stress models can be wrong if the rock is not at critical failure
condition.
Anisotropic elastic properties are available in Well B from processing of advanced sonic logs. Fig. 4
shows the comparison of the anisotropic and isotropic elastic properties. Track 4 shows the static vertical
Poisson’s ratio (Pr_sta_vert), static horizontal Poisson’s ratio (Pr_sta_horz) and the static Poisson’s ratio
assuming the rock is isotropic (Pr_sta). Track 5 shows the static vertical Young’s modulus (E_sta_vert),
static horizontal Young’s modulus (E_sta_horz) and the static Young’s modulus assuming the rock is
isotropic (E_sta). Track 6 shows the horizontal stresses calculated using two different stress models.
Sigh_TIV and SigH_TIV are the minimum horizontal stress and maximum horizontal stress calculated
using anisotropic elastic properties. Sigh and SigH are the minimum horizontal stress and the maximum
horizontal stress calculated using isotropic elastic properties. It can be seen from Track 4 and Track 5 that
the difference between the vertical elastic properties and horizontal elastic properties is small. As a result,
the horizontal stresses calculated using the anisotropic horizontal stress model result in relatively small
differences with those calculated using the isotropic horizontal stress model at this location.
The calculated horizontal stresses need to be calibrated with stress measurement. The most commonly
used stress measurement in the oil and gas industry is based on hydraulic fracturing principles. Extended
leakoff test while drilling, microfrac stress testing using wireline logging tools and minifrac while
stimulating are all based on the same principles. In hydraulic fracturing stress tests, the minimum in situ
stress is equivalent to the fluid pressure required to initiate the opening of an existing fracture, or the fluid
pressure in an existing fracture to counteract the stress in the rock perpendicular to the fracture plane. This
pressure is the fluid pressure in the fracture at the time of fracture closure and is commonly named as
fracture closure pressure. All types of stress tests endeavor to get a good estimation of the fracture closure
pressure through interpreting the fracture pressures. If the created hydraulic fracture is large enough and
the propagation is perpendicular to the minimum in situ stress, the fracture closure pressure is equivalent
to the minimum horizontal stress in a normal faulting or strike-slip stress regime, or the vertical stress in
a thrust faulting stress regime. In a thrust faulting stress regime, if the created hydraulic fracture is small
SPE-171590-MS 9

Figure 5—Unconventional fracture modeling simulated fracture network, microseismic events recorded and the DFN used in the simulations. a,
simulation using the originally estimated maximum horizontal stress; b, simulation using underestimated maximum horizontal stress; c, simulation
using the best estimative for the maximum horizontal stress.

in a vertical well, it is possible to have a fracture closure pressure equivalent to the minimum horizontal
stress, which is higher than the vertical stress.
Fracture closure pressures were interpreted from minifrac data in both the upper unit and the lower unit,
which are shown in Table 3. The comparison of the fracture closure pressure with the calculated minimum
horizontal stress is shown in Track 7 of Fig. 1. The fracture closure pressure gradient in the the lower unit
is greater than that in the upper unit.
There is no practical method of measuring the maximum horizontal stress in relatively deep formations.
Since wellbore failures, either hydraulic fracturing or shear failures such as breakouts, are a function of
the stresses and rock strength, it is possible to constrain the magnitude of the maximum horizontal stress
based on observed wellbore failures. Wellbore failures can most reliably be identified with borehole
images, other data that can be used to infer wellbore failures include caliper logs and drilling observations
such as tight hole, hole packing off, stuck pipe, mud losses etc.
There was no borehole image logged in the study wells, the caliper logs also show that the wellbores
were in gauge and no drilling difficulties were experienced while drilling these wells. This has eliminated
the possibility of using wellbore failures to constrain the magnitude of the maximum horizontal stress.
Although an upper bound of the maximum horizontal stress can be estimated by making the wellbore
starts to fail at that stress in the wellbore stability analysis.
Fig. 1 shows the main 1D MEM parameters of Well A. Log-derived and core-measured dynamic and
static Young’s moduli are displayed in Track 4. Log-derived and core-measured dynamic and static
Poisson’s ratios are displayed in Track 5. Track 6 shows the rock strength parameters. Track 7 displays
the pore pressure, pore pressure measurement, the three in situ stresses and the measurement of the
minimum horizontal stress. The caliper logs in this well show that the borehole was in gauge and no
borehole breakout or drilling-induced fractures could be identified for constraining the maximum
horizontal stress. Therefore, uncertainty in the magnitude of the maximum horizontal stress existed.
Wellbore stability analysis shows that with the estimated stress magnitudes, part of the wellbore is close
to having borehole breakout, indicating that the calculated maximum horizontal stress in Track 7 is close
to the upper bound of the true maximum horizontal stress values.
Calibration of the Maximum Horizontal Stress
Microseismicity occurs due to pore pressure and stress changes in the hydraulic fracturing process. Even
though tensile failure on the expanding tip of a hydraulic fracture is almost aseismic (Pearson 1981), the
high pore pressures in the vicinity of a propagating fracture reduces the normal stress on any weak planes
10 SPE-171590-MS

Figure 6 —Calibrated 1D Mechanical Earth Model for Well A. The maximum horizontal stress is calibrated with microseismic data and
unconventional fracture modeling and shown in Track 7.

such as natural fractures or bedding planes and induce shear failures in the favorably oriented weak planes
(Warpinski et al. 2004; Pearson 1981). Microseismic events are generated at the locations of these shear
slippages. A recoding of these microseismic events allows understanding of the geometry of a growing
fracture or fracture network. Microseismic hydraulic fracturing monitoring data have shown that complex
fracture networks are often created in unconventional reservoirs (Maxwell et al. 2002; Le Calvez et al.
2007).
Since the complexity of the fracture network created in hydraulic fracturing stimulation of unconven-
tional reservoirs is directly related to the horizontal stress anisotropy, if microseismic hydraulic fracturing
monitoring data is available, it is possible to constrain the magnitude of the maximum horizontal stress
by comparing the simulated fracture network with the microseismic events.
Unconventional fracture modeling, which simulates the propagation of a complex fracture network in
a formation with pre-existing natural fractures, solves a system of equations governing fracture defor-
SPE-171590-MS 11

Figure 7—The effects of DFN models on simulated fracture network complexity with the uncalibrated maximum horizontal stress as input. The
mismatch observed between the modeled fracture geometry and the recorded microseismic events shows that DFN model alone cannot produce a
reasonable fracture geometry model and hence the need to incorporate calibrated horizontal in situ stresses.

mation, height growth, fluid flow, and proppant transport in a complex fracture network with multiple
propagating fracture tips (Weng et al. 2011). The interaction between a hydraulic fracture and pre-existing
natural fractures is taken into account by using an analytical crossing model and is validated against
experimental data (Gu and Weng 2010). The complexity of the simulated fracture network is primarily a
function of the horizontal stress anisotropy, as well as natural fractures and interfacial friction (Weng et
al. 2011). Among the three factors, interfacial friction is nearly a constant for a reservoir at a specific
location. The length and spacing of natural fractures can be estimated from fracture analysis based on
seismic and borehole image data. Horizontal stress anisotropy is relatively hard to define and it is the most
critical parameter determining the created fracture network complexity.
Microseismic data were recorded for several fracturing stages in the study wells and all of them show
that complex fracture networks developed. Unconventional fracture models were constructed based on a
3D geological model, 1D MEM and well completion details. A discrete fracture network (DFN) model
constructed based on seismic attribute-based fracture detection and fracture analysis using wellbore
images from a nearby well was used to represent the natural fractures in the unconventional fracture
modeling. The DFN model constructed based on available seismic and borehole image data and used in
the simulations can be seen in Fig. 5, Fig. 7b and Fig. 8.
Fig. 5 shows the simulated fracture network for one of the fracturing stages in Well A and the recorded
microseismic events. In Fig. 5a, the input maximum horizontal stress values are the same as the originally
estimated ones (Fig. 1), and comparing to the micorseismic events, the simulated fracture height is too
large and fracture network complexity is not enough. In Fig. 5b, the maximum horizontal stress is reduced
by approximately 23%, and the simulated fracture height is too small and fracture network is too complex
compared to the microseismic events. In Fig. 5c, the maximum horizontal stress is reduced by approxi-
mately 16% and the simulated fracture height and fracture network complexity are comparable to the
microseismic events. It indicates that the input maximum horizontal stress is close to the true in situ
maximum horizontal stress. Fig. 6 shows 1D MEM for Well A with the calibrated maximum horizontal
stress in Track 7.
Sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate the effects of DFN on simulated fracture complexity
and calibration of the maximum horizontal stress. Unconventional fracture modeling was performed for
three different DFN scenarios with varying natural fracture density, with the originally estimated
maximum horizontal stress (uncalibrated) as input. Fig. 7 shows the simulated fracture networks with
these three different DFN models. It can be seen that by changing the DFN model alone, the simulated
fracture network cannot match the microseismic events.
12 SPE-171590-MS

Fracture Network Prediction

With the calibrated maximum horizontal stress and
other geomechanical parameters, unconventional
fracture modeling was performed for subsequent
stages in Well A. The simulated fracture networks
were also comparable to the microseismic events,
which further validated the calibration of the max-
imum horizontal stress. Fig. 8 shows the simulated
fracture network and the microseismic events of one
of these stages. It shows that with good understand-
ing of the geology, accurate characterization of nat- Figure 8 —Fracture network prediction using the calibrated maximum
ural fractures, and a fully calibrated mechanical horizontal stress for a new stimulation stage of Well A. The predicted
earth model including the maximum horizontal fracture network matched well with the recorded microseismic events.
stress, complex fracture network growth in uncon-
ventional reservoirs is predictable with unconventional fracture modeling. The predictability of complex
fracture network growth also provides opportunies for optimizing design and executions of hydraulic
fracturing stimulations in unconventional reservoirs. The areas that can be optimized include well
placement and density, fraturing stage design, perforation cluster locations, pumping schedule, selection
of fracturing fluid type and proppant.

Conclusions
Geomechanical parameters for an unconventional reservoir in WCSB have been characterized through
mechanical earth model construction and calibration for three study wells. Comparison between uncon-
ventional fracture modeling simulated fracture network and the actual stimulated fractured rock volume
from the microseismic data acquired during the multistage hydraulic fracture operation indicates that
maximum horizontal stress can be calibrated with unconventional fracture modeling and microseismic
data. Calibrating the maximum horizontal stress magnitude using microseismic data and unconventional
fracture modeling provides a method to increase the accuracy of predicting the stimulated rock volume in
a naturally fractured shale gas reservoir. With a more accurate prediction of the stimulated rock volume
for each hydraulic fracture, multistage fracture design and well placement can be adjusted to maximize
the overall stimulated volume of the reservoir. A more accurate prediction of stimulated rock volume
provides opportunities to improve stimulation design, which will result in increased production from
individual wells and optimized field recovery.

Acknowledgement
The authors thank Schlumberger for permission to publish this paper.

Nomenclature
DFN ⫽ Discrete fracture network
E_dyn ⫽ Dynamic Young’s modulus, GPa
E_sta ⫽ Static Young’s modulus, GPa
FANG ⫽ Angle of internal friction, degrees
GR ⫽ Gamma ray
MD ⫽ Meaured depth, m
MEM ⫽ Mechanical earth model
PPRS_DT ⫽ Pore pressure, MPa
Pr_dyn ⫽ Dynamic Poisson’s ratio
SPE-171590-MS 13

Pr_sta ⫽ Static Poisson’s ratio

Sigh ⫽ Minimum horizontal stress, MPa
SigH ⫽ Maximum horizontal stress, MPa
SigV ⫽ Vertical stress, MPa
TSTR ⫽ Tensile strength, MPa
TVD ⫽ True vertical depth
UCS ⫽ Unconfined compressive strength, MPa

References
Bell, J.S. and Babcock, E.A. 1986. The Stress Regime of the Western Canadian Basin and Implica-
tions for Hydrocarbon Production. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geolgoy 34 (3): 364 –378.
Cipolla, C., Weng, X., Mack, M. et al. 2011. Integrating Microseismic Mapping and Complex Fracture
Modeling to Characterize Fracture Complexity. Paper SPE 140185 presented at the SPE Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 24 –26 January.
Gu, H. and Siebrits, E. 2006. Effect of Formation Modulus Contrast on Hydraulic Fracture Height
Containment. SPE 103822 presented at the SPE International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition in
China, Beijing, China, 5–7 December.
Gu, H., Siebrits, E. and Sabourov, A., 2008. Hydraulic-Fracture Modeling with Bedding Plane
Interfacial Slip. SPE 117445 presented at the SPE Eatern Regional/AAPG Eastern Section Joint Meeting,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 11–15 October.
Gu, H. and Weng, X. 2010. Criterion for Fractures Crossing Frictional Interfaces at NonOrthogonal
Angles. Paper ARMA 10 –198 presented at the 44th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th U.S.-
Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 27–30 June.
Higgins, S. Goodwin, S. Donald, A. et al. 2008. Anisotropic Stress Models Improve Completion
Design in the Baxter Shale. Paper SPE 115736 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 21–24 September.
Kenter, C.J., Blanton, T.L., Schreppers, G.M.A. et al. 1998. Compaction Study for Shearwater Field.
Paper SPE 47280 presented at the SPE/ISRM Eurock 98, Trondheim, Norway, 8 –10 July.
Le Calvez, J.J., Klem, R., Tanner, K.V. et al. 2007. Real-Time Microseismic Monitoring of Hydraulic
Fracture Treatment: A Tool to Improve Completion and Reservoir Management. Paper SPE 106159
presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, College Station, Texas, USA, 29 –31
January.
Maxwell, S.C., Urbancic, T.I., Steinsberger, N.P. et al. 2002. Microseimic Imaging of Hydraulic
Fracture Complexity in the Barnett Shale. Paper SPE 77440 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September-2 October.
Pallikathekathil, Z.J., Puspitasari, R. Altaf, I. et al. 2013. Calibrated Mechanical Earth Models Answer
Questions on Hydraulic Fracture Containment and Wellbore Stability in Some of the CSG Wells in the
Bowen Basin. Paper SPE 167069 presented at the SPE Unconventioanl Resources Conference and
Exhibition-Asia Pacific, Brisbane, Australia, 11–13 November.
Pearson, C. 1991. The Relationship between Microseismicity and High Pore Pressure During Hy-
draulic Stimulation Experiments in Low Permeability Granitic Rocks. Journal of Geophysical Research
(B9): 7855–7864.
Plumb, R.A., Edwards, S., Pidcock, G. et al. 2000. The Mechanical Earth Model Concept and its
Application to High-Risk Well Construction Projects. Paper SPE 59128 presented at IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 23–25 February.
Renshaw, C.E. and Pollard, D.D. 1995. An Experimentally Verified Criterion for Propagation Across
Unbounded Frictional Interfaces in Brittle, Linear Elastic Materials. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr. 32 (3): 237–249.
14 SPE-171590-MS

Sayers, C.M. 2013. The Effect of Kerogen on the Elastic Anisotropy of Organic-Rich Shales.
Geophysics, Vol 78, No. 2 (March-April 2013); P. D65–74, doi: 10.1190/GEO2012-0309.1.
Simonson, E.R., Abou-Sayed, A.S. and Clifton, R.J. 1977, Containment of Massive Hydraulic
Fractures. SPE J. SPE-6089.
Smith, M.B. and Shlyapobersky J.W. 2000. Basics of Hydraulic Fracturing. In Reservoir Stimulation-
3rd Edition, ed. Michael J. Economides and Kenneth G. Nolte, Chap. 5. John Wiley & Sons.
Teufel, L.W. and Clark, J.A. 1984. Hydraulic Fracture Propagation in Layered Rock: Experimental
Studies of Fracuture Containment. SPE J. SPE-9878.
Thiercelin, M.J. and Plumb, R.A. 1991. A Core-Based Prediction of Lithologic Stress Contrasts in
East Texas Formations. Paper SPE 21847 presented at the Rock Mountain Regional Meeting and
Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 15–17 April.
Warpinski, N.R., Branagan, P.T., Peterson, R.E. et al. 1998. An Interpretation of M-Site Hydralic
Fracture Diagnostic Results. Paper SPE 39950 presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low-
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5– 8 April.
Warpinski, N.R., Schmidt, R.A. and Northrop, D.A. 1980. In Situ Stresses: The Predominant Influence
on Hydraulic Fracture Containment. Paper SPE/DOE 8932 presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on
Unconventional Gas Recovery, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 18 –21 May.
Warpinski, N.R., Wolhart, S.L. and Wright, C.A. 2004. Analysis and Prediction of Microseismicity
Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing. SPE J. 9 (1): 24 –33. SPE-87673-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/87673-
PA.
Weng, X., Kresse, O., Cohen, C. et al. 2011. Modeling of Hydraulic-Fracture-Network Propagation in
a Naturally Fractured Formation. SPE Prod & Oper 26 (4): 368 –380. SPE-140253-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/140253-PA.
Wolhart, S.L., Stutz, H.L. and Mayerhofer, M.J., 2004. Applying Advanced Fracture Diagnostics to
Optimize Fracture Stimulation in Coalbed Methane Reservoirs: Case History of Two Fields in the Rocky
Mountains, Paper SPE 91376 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, West Virginia,
USA, 15–17 September.