Hydraulic-Fracture Geomechanics and
Microseismic-Source Mechanisms
N.R. Warpinski, M.J. Mayerhofer, K. Agarwal, PinnacleA Halliburton Service, and
J. Du, Total E&P Research and Technology
Summary
Interpretation of microseismic results and attempts to link micro-
seismic-source mechanisms to fracture behavior require an under-
standing of the geomechanics of the fracturing process. Stress
calculations around fractures show that the area normal to the
fracture surface is stabilized by a pressurized fracture as a result
of increased total stress and decreased shear stress. In this
area, microseisms can occur only if leakoff pressurizes natural
fractures, bedding planes, or other weakness features, and source
mechanisms are thus likely to show a volumetric component that
has either opening or closing movement in addition to shear slip-
page. Conversely, the tip tensile region is destabilized by a reduc-
tion in total stress and an increase in shear stress, with the likelihood
that microseisms would be generated in this region because of these
changes. Such microseisms would not yet be invaded by the fractur-
ing fluid, and events that are mostly shear would be expected. Sys-
tems with multiple fractures, such as those that are potentially
created in multiperforation-cluster stages, are much more complex,
but similar elements can be outlined for those as well.
Source mechanisms can help delineate these different types of
microseismic behaviors, but the evaluation of such mechanisms
reveals that they provide no significant information about the hy-
draulic fracture. Whereas it would be valuable if source mecha-
nisms could provide information about the mechanics of the
hydraulic fracture (e.g., opening, closing, and proppant), calcula-
tions show that both the energy and volume associated with
microseismicity are an insignificant fraction of the total energy
and volume input into the stimulation. Thus, hydraulic fractures
are almost entirely aseismic. The analysis of source mechanisms
should concentrate on what those data reveal about the reservoir
(e.g., natural fractures and faults). Integrated diagnostic studies
provide more value in understanding both the microseismicity
and interpretation of the microseismic results.
Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing is an essential technology for most uncon-
ventional hydrocarbon resources and many conventional ones as
well. The primary limitation on the improvement and optimiza-
tion of the fracturing process to maximize economic gain has
been a minimal ability to observe the behavior of the fracture in
the subsurface. As a result, the intricate mechanics associated
with fracture growth in complex, layered, and jointed sedimentary
systems has been difficult to fully characterize.
Diagnostic technologies provide a window into the subsurface
that supplies some subsets of knowledge about the fracture, either
through near-wellbore measurements, indirect production and
pressure behavior, or far-field monitoring, such as microseismic
and microdeformation. In terms of actual fracture dimensions and
the overall structure of fractures or fracture systems, microseismic
monitoring is the most widely used and has the potential to pro-
vide the most information about the fracture.
Fig. 1 shows an example (Mayerhofer et al. 2011) of micro-
seismic mappings for a two-well fracture project in the Marcellus
Copyright V
C 2013 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 158935) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 810 October 2012, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 11 October 2012. Revised manuscript
received for review 28 December 2012. Paper peer approved 9 January 2013.
766
shale. The engineering value of such a test is immediately apparent
in examining the dataThe wells have approximately the correct
trajectory for transverse fractures, the length of the fractures rela-
tive to well spacing can be evaluated and refined, the number of
stages and their spacing along the wellbore can be tested, the num-
ber of perforation clusters (this case) or the use of packers and
sleeves can be examined, fluid systems can be optimized, diver-
sion techniques can be applied and diagnosed, height growth can
be assessed relative to treatment parameters and the interval in
which the well is landed, and various other aspects of the field de-
velopment, well layout, completion system, and fracture treatment
can be tested and optimized. Furthermore, when used in conjunc-
tion with other diagnostic technologies, such as pressure data,
diagnostic fracture injection tests (DFITs), microdeformation, dis-
tributed temperature sensing (DTS), production logs, production
data, and many others, the full suite of information can provide
valuable evidence about the details of the stimulation and produc-
tion of hydrocarbons from complicated unconventional reservoirs.
Microseismicity is a phenomenon that occurs when the stress
conditions in the Earth are altered by changes in stress loading or
pore pressure, resulting in some sudden movement between rock
elements (e.g., Albright and Pearson 1982; Fehler 1989). Hydraulic
fractures alter both conditions (Warpinski et al. 2004), and almost
all hydraulic fractures induce some level of microseismicity. These
microseisms emit both compressional and shear energy in a seismic
range (typically, 50 to 1,000 Hz) that can be detected and recorded
with sensitive receivers (Warpinski et al. 1998a; Warpinksi 2009).
Because the events are usually very small (1 to 1000 Joules of seis-
mic energy), they are optimally detected with downhole receiver
arrays and then located with a variety of methodologies to migrate
energy back to the source. Accurate location requires a calibrated
velocity structure, an adequate array design for the conditions, a
relatively noise-free environment, well-coupled receivers with tri-
axial sensors, and adequate acquisition systems (Warpinski 2009).
Nevertheless, microseismicity remains somewhat ambiguous
with respect to mechanisms and interpretation. Some of the ambi-
guity is a result of the fact that no one has directly observed the
slippage or rock movement that produces a microseism. Whereas
related phenomena such as earthquakes can have their locations,
dimensions, and other characteristics deduced from aftershocks
and surface expressions, and mine rock bursts can be physically
examined after the rock detachment, there never has been an ex-
amination of a feature that is clearly a hydraulic-fracture-induced
microseism. Without direct observational evidence, hypothetical
mechanisms must be assumed and then tested for their validity
with indirect information and first principles.
There are a number of important questions about hydraulic-
fracture microseismicity that bear further attention precisely be-
cause of the indeterminacy. These include the following:
 How is the microseismicity related to the actual presence of
the fracturing fluid, and how might this change in different reser-
voirs? Can there be leakoff or stress effects that make microseis-
mic interpretation less precise?
 What value can be gained from the microseismic-source
information?
 What kind of crosschecks and other comparisons can be
used to evaluate these questions?
The objective of this paper is to provide reasonable informa-
tion about these questions with a geomechanical analysis of
microseismicity.
August 2013 SPE Journal
 Feet
1,750 1,500 1,250 1,000 750 500 250 0 250 500 750 1,000

3,250
3,000
2,750
2,500
2,250
2,000

Feet 1,750
1,500
1,250
1,000 Monitor
Well
750
500
250 Well 2H Well 1H
N
0
N59E

2,250 2,000 1,750 1,500 1,250 1,000 750 500 250 0 250 500 750 1,000

4,750 Monitor
Well
5,000
Tully
5,250
Moscow
5,500
Feet

5,750 SKTL Shale

6,000
Marcellus
6,250

6,500 Onondaga

6,750

Fig. 1Example microseismic project showing engineering value (from Mayerhofer et al. 2011).

Microseismic Occurrences larger shear (S)-wave amplitudes than compressional (P)-wave

In attempting to understand microseismicity, it is helpful to first
look at the simplest case of a planar hydraulic fracture and attempt
to determine where the microseisms are relative to the hydraulic
fracture. The obvious demarcation is between those events that
might be associated with the fracture tip and those microseisms
that appear to occur well after the fracture tip has passed. Fig. 2
shows one example of a segregation of events taken from a single-
fracture stage in a Canadian sedimentary-basin horizontal well
(Shaffner et al. 2011). This particular case is color coded into green
tip events and red interior events. The green tip events can be asso-
ciated with the length tip or the height tip, either up or down. The
results are very common for planar fractures; half or more of the
events are clearly not related to the tip of the fracture and occur all
along the length of the existing fracture. On the basis of geome-
chanics considerations that will be discussed later, these events are
most likely related to leakoff of the high-pressure fracturing fluid
into natural fractures or other permeable or activated features.
One might be tempted to assume that the microseisms that
occur close to the tip are a result of the tensile fracturing of the
rock, but that is not the current interpretation derived from the
waveforms that are typically observed. Most events show much
amplitudes (Rutledge et al. 2004), which is indicative of either a
shear process or some complex process with the reorganization of
volumetric distributions. Walter and Brune (1993) suggest that
tensile faults will have S-wave/P-wave ratios that range from 0.7
to 2.1, whereas shear faults exhibit S-wave/P-wave ratios of 2.4
to 7.1. Relatively large S-wave/P-wave ratios are commonly
observed in the microseismic monitoring of hydraulic fractures
for example, Rutledge and Phillips (2003) show how the data fit
the expected radiation pattern for shear-fault behavior.
It is not clear why the tensile failure at the advancing tip of a
hydraulic fracture would not be detected by microseismic tools.
The energy associated with parting a rock surface, although com-
plicated by stress loading and other possible factors (e.g., Fair-
hurst and Cornet 1981; Chudnovsky et al. 1996), should be of a
sufficiently large amplitude to be detectable. A more likely reason
is that the emitted energy is too high in frequency to be detected
with current tools, with the attendant rapid attenuation of the high
frequencies by the Earth filter. One would expect that the corner
frequency for a tensile breakage of the rock should be on the order
of the velocity divided by the failure dimension; thus, fracturing
that occurs in small increments might result in very-high-

August 2013 SPE Journal 767

 400

Distance Along Fracture Length, m

Interior events
300 Tip events
200
100
0
100
200
300
400
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time, min

60
Depth From Center of Perfs, m

Interior events
1,100
40 Tip events
1,000

Northing, m
20 900
800
0
700
20 600
500
40 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800
Easting, m
60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time, min

Fig. 2Example of microseismic distribution as a function of time, with green events in the near-tip vicinity and red events broad-
side to the fracture after the tip has passed.

frequency events. A third possibility is that the inhomogeneity of ing rock, and these stress changes are often greater than the stress
typical rocks is sufficient to distort the stress field and/or provide differences that existed in the reservoir before fracturing. In addi-
weakness planes that induce mixed-mode fracturing, which in- tion, the leakoff of the high-pressure fluid, at pressures well above
cludes a shear component, and these are some of the microseisms the minimum in-situ stress, reduces the net normal stress and
that are observed. In any case, it appears that microseisms detected destabilizes any natural fractures or other permeable weakness
in typical hydraulic-fracture-monitoring projects are primarily planes that are intersected by the fracture. These combined factors
those with a large shear component, and this behavior needs to be create a mixed environment of stable and unstable zones around
accounted for in understanding and interpreting microseismic the fracture where microseismicity would be likely (Warpinski
results. et al. 2004; Palmer et al. 2012).

Planar-Fracture Evaluation. Looking again at a single hydrau-

Hydraulic-Fracture Geomechanics lic fracture for simplicity, there are numerous models available to
Microseismicity associated with hydraulic fracturing has consid- calculate the stress field induced by the fracture, including both
erably different geomechanical aspects than earthquakes, rock finite-element and analytical models. For scoping calculations, an-
bursts, or geothermal shear dilation. The inflation of a fracture alytical models are sufficient, and the most versatile one is a pres-
with internal pressure induces very large stresses in the surround- surized 3D elliptical crack (Green and Sneddon 1950). This
model requires a homogeneous, isotropic, linear-elastic formation
1,000
material and a uniform pressure in the fracture, but these simplifi-
cations still allow for the adequate evaluation of the characteris-
Lateral horizontal tics of the stress field around the fracture and the influence of the
Stress Exerted by Fracture, psi

800 Vertical stress field on shear or tensile behavior. As shown in Fig. 2, the
Normal horizontal microseismicity can be divided into a tip-influenced region and a
600 fracture-normal-influenced region, and these are considered sepa-
rately. Only a vertical fracture is considered here.
400 The fracture-normal zone (the area alongside the fracture after
the tip has passed) can be assessed with the analytic model of Green
and Sneddon (1950) for typical, elongated fractures (length >
200
height). Fig. 3 shows the stress decay moving away from the frac-
ture face along the centerline of the fracture, with respect to both
0 length and height. The fracture and formation parameters are
 Total length: 400 ft
200  Height: 100 ft
0 50 100 150 200  Net pressure: 1,000 psi
Distance Normal to Fracture, ft  Youngs modulus: 5  106 psi
 Poissons ratio: 0.2
Fig. 3Stress decay normal to fracture face along centerline of The largest stress perturbation is the compressive stress that is
fracture. normal to the crack face, and this is in the direction of the

768 August 2013 SPE Journal

 200
Stress Induced by Fracture, psi
100
0 ture length and one vertically. In both cases, an elongated fracture
100
200
Normal horizontal
300 Vertical
Lateral horizontal
400
500
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance From Tip of Fracture, ft
Fig. 4Stress decay ahead of the length tip along centerline of
fracture.
minimal principal in-situ stress. The stress perturbation in the
direction aligned with the fracture length is also compressive, but
it is considerably smaller. The significance of this behavior is that
the stresses imposed by the hydraulic fracture are highly stabiliz-
ing and, by themselves, would probably stifle any microseismicity
from occurring in this region. The reason is twofold. First, the
shear stress in the formation is significantly reduced because more
stress is added in the minimum-horizontal-stress direction than to
the maximum-horizontal-stress direction. Second, the total normal
stress (or mean stress) is increased because compressive stress is
added to both the minimum and maximum stresses. The combined
effect is to increase frictional strength and reduce the available
shear, making it very difficult for any shear slippage to occur.
There is a tensile stress in the vertical direction at some distance
from the fracture, but it is relatively small and probably has a min-
imal effect on microseismicity. The full effect of these stress
changes, however, depends very strongly on the in-situ stresses
that are already present. Because the in-stress tensor is not usually
known in its entirety, these can only be considered generalizations
of possible behavior caused by the fracturing process.
The reason why much microseismicity occurs in this region is
because leakoff of the high-pressure fracturing fluid into natural
fractures, faults, or other permeable weakness features reduces the
frictional forces on these planes. When pressure increases inside
one of these features as a result of leakoff, the net normal stress
that induces the friction force decreases dramatically, particularly
because the fluid pressure is well above the minimum stress level.
The perturbation caused by this fluid pressure is actually much
greater than that caused by the opening of the fracture because the
fluid pressure change is on the order of the fracturing pressure
minus the reservoir pressure, whereas the stress change, the net
pressure, is on the order of the fracturing pressure minus the mini-
mum in-situ stress.
Even though this geomechanical analysis says nothing about
the characteristics of the microseismicity, the fact that fluid pres-
sure is an important element suggests that there could be a
volumetric component to the microseismic event. There is also,
however, the adjunct issue of fissure opening (Nolte and Smith
1981), which will occur when
rmax  rmin
DP > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1  2
When the net pressure reaches this level and there are permea-
ble fractures available (vertical fractures in this case), the pressure
becomes sufficient to overcome the stress along the length of the
fracture (maximum horizontal stress plus the fracture-induced
stress) and to open the fissures, much like the hydraulic fracture is
opened.
Eq. 1 shows that the pressure required for fissure opening
depends only on the difference in the two horizontal stresses and
August 2013 SPE Journal
Poissons ratio; this equation is valid for a long fracture of nearly
constant height (plane strain).
The tip region of the hydraulic fracture is very different and
needs to be considered in two separate casesone along the frac-
is also considered, but the elongation is changed to highlight the
differences. For the length tip, a fairly high-aspect-ratio case is
considered, with the following parameters:
 Total length: 1,000 ft
 Height: 100 ft
 Net pressure: 1,000 psi
 Youngs modulus: 5  106 psi
 Poissons ratio: 0.2
Fig. 4 shows the stress decay moving out ahead of the tip
along the centerline of the fracture with respect to height and
width. The normal horizontal stress is normal to the fracture and
in the minimum-stress direction, whereas the lateral horizontal
direction is along the length of the fracture and in the maximum-
horizontal-stress direction. Ahead of the tip, the stresses are all
tensile, except for the vertical direction in which there is a very
small tensile zone and very little effect outside of that. The effect
of these stress changes is now very different from what happens
broadside to the fracture in the previous case. The end result is an
increase of the shear stress in the formation (greater difference
between the horizontal and vertical stresses) and a decrease in the
total stress. Depending on the in-situ stress conditions and other
factors, microseisms should be expected whenever any favorably
oriented weakness planes are encountered. This zone is relatively
smallat most, a few tens of feetand provides a mechanism for
microseisms to occur slightly ahead of the fracture tip. In contrast
to the previous case, there is no fluid from the hydraulic fracture
in this zone, and one might anticipate that these microseisms
would be unlikely to have a volumetric component of either
opening or closing, and pure shear might be more likely. Source
analysis of microseisms in this area might reveal different charac-
teristics of the mechanism that induces the rock movement.
In addition to the changes in the tensile zone, there must be a
shear zone around the fracture tip between the tensile and com-
pressive regions to accommodate the stress changes. This is also a
zone in which microseismicity might be expected, and the fractur-
ing fluid is not associated with it; thus, volumetric source mecha-
nisms might not be operative. This zone extends laterally away
from the fracture face and has a size that is comparable with the
tensile zone.
It is also important to recognize that these calculated stress
changes may be somewhat larger than those induced by an actual
fracture in the field. The 3D elliptic-crack model assumes full
pressure out to the tip of the fracture, whereas in actual practice
there will be an unwetted region near the tip that will somewhat
reduce the tip changes. This aspect is ignored here because the
size of the tip region is uncertain.
The other tip region is that associated with the top and bottom
of the fracture. In this case, a long fracture with considerable
height growth is used to illustrate stress conditions that could
induce a large amount of microseismicity above the actual frac-
ture tip. The fracture parameters are
 Total length: 500 ft
 Height: 200 ft
 Net pressure: 1,000 psi
 Youngs modulus: 5  106 psi
 Poissons ratio: 0.2
This case, as shown in Fig. 5, is similar to the tip case along
the length of the fracture, with both horizontal stresses being ten-
sile, and the one in the minimum-stress direction now with a
larger tensile stress. Thus, the region above the top of the fracture
(and below the bottom of the fracture) is severely destabilized by
the fracture. This case is different, however, in that a long fracture
with considerable height growth can result in a much larger zone
of perturbed stresses. Rather than a few tens of feet, perturbations
that extend two or three times farther are possible. Obviously,
slippage depends on the in-situ stresses and the orientation of any
769
 100
Stress Induced by Fracture, psi
0 be considerably larger upward or downward if there is consider-
100
200
Normal horizontal
300 Vertical
Lateral horizontal
400
500
0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance From Tip of Fracture, ft
Fig. 5Stress decay above the height tip along centerline of
fracture.
weakness planes that might slip, all of which is further compli-
cated by layering, but there is the potential for microseismicity to
occur some distance above and below the fracture in situations in
which some layers are close to critically stressed. Agarwal et al.
(2012) show cases in which the in-situ stresses are taken into
account with a stability function to characterize the potential for
microseismicity to occurthis case also has no fluid involvement,
suggesting that microseismicity might not have much volumetric
component in the source mechanism.
Whereas these examples use a somewhat complex analytical
method (Green and Sneddon 1950), similar kinds of analyses can
be performed with other analytical models in limiting cases.
These include the analyses by Sneddon and Elliott (1946) for a
2D crack and Sneddon (1946) for a penny-shaped crack. Both of
these analyses can be reduced to relatively simple analytical equa-
tions along the centerlines, as was performed in Figs. 3 through 5.
In summary, an examination of the stress conditions around a
fracture suggests that microseismicity that occurs near the center
part of the fracture is most likely a result of the leakoff of the
high-pressure fracturing fluids into natural fractures and other
weakness planes. There are probably some additional sources of
microseismicity that might occur along jogs in the fracture and
along weak bedding planes, but these would be specific to unique
conditions associated with the fracture or the formation. Micro-
seismicity is also expected around the fracture tip as a result of
the altered stress conditions in this region. For a typical elongated
fracture, this zone is very narrow in the length direction but can
able height growth.
Multiple-Fracture Geomechanics. In the case of multiple stages
and multiple perforation clusters (as typically performed on shale-
oil and shale-gas wells), the geomechanics becomes considerably
more complicated because of the interaction between the various
fractures (East et al. 2011; Roussel and Sharma 2011; Agarwal
et al. 2012). Agarwal et al. (2012) provide examples of multiple
fractures of different lengths and show how the interactions of
these different fractures affect both the microseismicity and the
formation of a network, as commonly found in the Barnett
300
shale. In such cases, stability contour plots are more convenient
for understanding microseismic behavior. Stability plots are a dif-
ference between the shear stress available to cause slippage and
the friction force resisting the movement, given by
fs jsj  lrn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Fig. 6 shows an example of a stability plot taken from Agarwal
et al. (2012), in which four fractures of arbitrary length are extend-
ing from four starting sites (perforation clusters) in a horizontal
well for a case in which no leakoff is allowed to occur. The cool
colors and negative numbers are associated with stable areas in the
formation and are unlikely places for microseismicity to occur
without other factors being involved. The warm colors are possible
unstable areas, depending on the shear strength of any weakness
plane. Rehealed natural fractures might not slip, whereas unce-
mented natural fractures are likely to do so if the roughness is not
too severe. The selection of fracture lengths is arbitrary, but it is
expected that exterior fractures would likely propagate more easily
because of less interference; thus, the two exterior fractures are
long, and the interior ones are shorter. The actual fracture lengths
that would be obtained in a treatment with four perforation clusters
are obviously a result of many factors, but no attempt is made here
to calculate actual sizes with first principles. Important parameters
in this example are modeled after the Barnett shale and include a
100-psi horizontal-stress bias relative to a 500-psi net fracturing
pressure, with a somewhat elevated reservoir pressure gradient
(0.56 psi/ft) and normal-fracture gradient (0.7 psi/ft), as given in
Agarwal et al. (2012).
This particular example has a destabilized zone ahead of only
the longest-fracture tips and a small one around the next-to-

Contour of fs (in psi)

Deformed Factor: 500 Shmax
5.0000E+02
150 m

4.5000E+02
4.0000E+02
3.5000E+02
3.0000E+02
2.5000E+02
2.0000E+02
1.5000E+02
1.0000E+02
100 m

5.0000E+01
0.0000E+00
5.0000E+01

y
50 m

Shmin
30 m

Fig. 6Example of stability function for multiple hydraulic fractures emanating from four perforation clusters in a horizontal well
(after Agarwal et al. 2012); blue is stable, and red is unstable.

770 August 2013 SPE Journal

 Contour of fs (in psi)
Deformed Factor: 500 Shmax

150 m
5.0000E+01 Stable for
0.0000E+00
5.0000E+01
1.0000E+02 c 35 psi
1.5000E+02
2.0000E+02
2.5000E+02
3.0000E+02 c 90 psi

100 m
3.5000E+02
4.0000E+02
4.5000E+02 c 140 psi
5.0000E+02

50 m
x

30 m Shmin

Fig. 7Example of stability function for multiple hydraulic fractures emanating from four perforation clusters in a horizontal well
with increased pore pressure caused by uniform leakoff (after Agarwal et al. 2012); blue is stable, whereas red is unstable.

shortest fracture. Whereas the destabilized area around the tip
looks large for this example, any microseismicity will depend on
the orientation of the natural fractures and their shear strength. In
the absence of leakoff, there is no expected microseismicity after
the fracture tip has passed. There is enhanced stability normal to
the fractures, but such behavior is contrary to experience in shale
reservoirs. The importance of leakoff for microseismicity in these
complex environments is the same as for planar fractures.
Because the development of a complex fracture system in
these reservoirs is impossible to deterministically resolve, no
attempt is made to calculate or infer the pore-pressure distribution
around this fracture system because fluid might leak off into natu-
ral fractures or other features. Rather, Fig. 7 shows a case similar
to Fig. 6 but altered by elevating the pore pressure in the whole
region to a level that is 200 psi lower than the fracturing pressure
(Agarwal et al. 2012). As one would expect, this high pore pres-
sure destabilizes the reservoir. However, the presence of the adja-
cent fractures actually creates additional instability for these
given stress and pressure conditions, with a considerably different
stability situation around the interior and exterior regions sur-
rounding the outside fractures. Microseismicity in these complex
multiple-fracture environments becomes more difficult to inter-
pret than in the case of a simple planar fracture.
Finally, the development of a fracture network (if one should
occur as a result of fissure opening) has a significant effect on the
regions in which microseismicity is likely to develop. Fig. 8

Contour of fs (in psi)

Deformed Factor: 500
150 m

Shmax
5.0000E+01 Stable for
0.0000E+00
5.0000E+01
1.0000E+02 c 35 psi
1.5000E+02
2.0000E+02
2.5000E+02
3.0000E+02 c 90 psi
100 m

3.5000E+02
4.0000E+02
4.5000E+02 c 140 psi
5.0000E+02

Opening of orthogonal
fissures stabilizes nearby
regions and reduces the
50 m

chance of shear slippage

x Shmin
30 m

Fig. 8Example of stability function for multiple hydraulic fractures emanating from four perforation clusters in a horizontal well
with increased pore pressure caused by uniform leakoff and with orthogonal fractures induced by fissure opening (after Agarwal
et al. 2012).

August 2013 SPE Journal 771

 4,000
Gamma Ray Monitor well:
Tiltmeter heights cemented-in
receivers
4,200
C sand

4,400
Intersection
Depth, ft B sand wells
4,600

Microseismic data
4,800
600
A sand Wireline receivers

Northing (ft)
400

200
5,000 Monitor well: 0 Cemented-in
wireline receivers Intersection wells
200
receivers 800 600 400 200 0 200 400 600 800
5,200 Easting (ft)

800 600 400 200 0 200 400 600 800

Lateral Distance Along Fracture Azimuth, ft

Fig. 9Overview of M-Site validation results.

shows the same example as the previous two cases, but with arbi-
trary orthogonal fractures added to the system. All fractures are
pressurized to the same level, and the pore pressure is again ele-
vated to 200 psi less than the fracturing pressure. After the orthog-
onal fractures form, they create a very stable region around them
that even leakoff cannot destabilize. However, the areas around
the tips of the orthogonal fractures are regions in which microseis-
micity would be expected. It is also worth noting that Agarwal
et al. (2012) also show that these stable areas are likewise areas in
which an additional fissure opening will not occur, suggesting it is
very difficult to create densely fractured networks.
In many ways, these results are similar to what was observed
for the stress situation of a single planar fracture. There are regions
around the fracture tipsparticularly for the longest fracturesin
which microseismicity would be expected ahead of the fracture.
The size of this zone depends on many fracture and reservoir pa-
rameters. Leakoff of high-pressure fracturing fluid is what desta-
bilizes the region around the fracture after the tip has passed by;
thus, microseismicity in this area is largely associated with the
1,500
1,000
500
Observation well
0 excellent agreement with the microseismically deduced azimuths
South-North, ft
presence of fracturing fluid or pressure induced by the fluid if res-
ervoir fluids are relatively incompressible. However, the formation
of a network provides additional stabilization that makes it diffi-
cult for microseismicity to occur. Because of this effect, it will be
very difficult to form a dense fractured network without diversion
or other methodologies to encourage new fractures.
Microseismic Validation
Because microseismicity is an indirect measurement of the hy-
draulic-fracturing process, validation is an important element in
attempting to understand how the microseismicity is related to
dimensions. There have been a number of studies funded by the
US government, the Gas Research Institute (GRI), and industry
consortia that have provided validation of the microseismic
method for evaluating fracture dimensions and geometry. The
most comprehensive was the M-Site, cofunded by the US Depart-
ment of Energy and GRI, in which microseismicity was moni-
tored in multiple wells in conjunction with downhole tiltmeters,
downhole pressure, tracers, intersection wells, and detailed suites
of stress measurements and core and log analyses (Branagan et al.
1996a, b, 1997; Warpinski et al. 1996, 1997a, 1998b). Fig. 9
shows a correlated overview of the microseismic data relative to
other direct measurements of fracture location through intersec-
tion wells and deformation.
Azimuths of the hydraulic fracture were determined by inter-
section wells cored through the fractures and were found to be in
of regressions through the event data. Fracture heights, as deter-

500 mined by tiltmeters cemented in an offset well to measure defor-

Killed wells mation, were in good agreement with the average height found
1,000 from microseismicity. The fracture-length comparison in one
zone was evaluated by drilling a deviated intersection well 300 ft
1,500 along strike from the treatment well, monitoring pressure in the
intersection well as the treatment was conducted, and examining
2,000 the microseismicity that occurred up to the point at which a
pressure increase was detected in the intersection well. Good
2,500 agreement was also found in this comparison. Overall, this test
Tiltmeter length (45% volume NW orientation) demonstrated that microseismicity could be used to define fracture
3,000 growth in tight sandstones.
1,000 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 The M-Site results demonstrate easy microseismic interpret-
West-East, ft ability for simple fractures that are relatively planar, but compli-
cated network fractures found in some shale reservoirs are a much
Fig. 10Barnett-shale example showing five killed or different occurrence. An example from one of the first monitoring
bashed wells (red squares) that support the development of a studies of shales (Fisher et al. 2002) has been cited in many dis-
network with actual fluid movement laterally (after Fisher et al. cussions of fracturing shale reservoirs, but in this case most sa-
2002). lient points are frequently overlooked or misunderstood. Fig. 10

772 August 2013 SPE Journal

 1.0E09
Displacement Spectrum, cm-sec
o the source mechanism in the form of a moment tensor.
1.0E10
1.0E11
1.0E12 Anti-aliasing
filter
1.0E13
1 10 100 1,000
Frequency, Hz
Fig. 11Example displacement spectrum for determining cor-
ner frequency and low-frequency amplitude.
shows a combined data set from that case study, which has a verti-
cal treatment well in which a very large water-fracture treatment
was conducted. Several diagnostics were used to monitor the
treatment, and there were several nearby wells that proved essen-
tial to understanding the development of a network fracture
system.
In this case, the five offset wells were loaded up with fractur-
ing fluid during the treatment, proving that large amounts of fluid
were moving laterally away from the fracture plane as well as
along the hydraulic-fracture direction. Note that two of the
killed or bashed wells were outside of the viewing limits of
the microseismic monitoring well; thus, it is expected that the
fracture network is even much larger than shown here. In addition
to microseismicity, surface and downhole tiltmeters were used to
measure the deformation induced by the fracturing. The downhole
tiltmeters (in two wells) were used to calculate the fracture length
(as shown in Fig. 10), and the surface tiltmeters provided informa-
tion on fracture azimuth and fracture components. In particular,
the surface tiltmeters showed that roughly 45% of the volume that
was created during fracturing was perpendicular to the dominant
fracture azimuth. The amount of fluid moving laterally away from
the fracture was as much as the fluid moving along the fracture
azimuth. This behavior clearly shows that the natural fractures or-
thogonal to main northeast/southwest fracture orientation actually
opened and transmitted fluid along distances of hundreds of feet.
These results demonstrate that the zone of microseismicity
(other than limits on viewing distance) is representative of the net-
work that is created during slickwater fracturing of some of these
shale reservoirs. The linear features drawn on the microseismic
data were intended only to highlight the fact that microseismicity
often shows dominant planes. Some of these alignments of events
might be entirely serendipitous, which calls into question the use
of such features, but there is no doubt that many features clearly
align temporally and spatially and often progress outward laterally
away from the hydraulic fracture.
Microseismic-Source Evaluation
Because of the relatively complicated geomechanics associated
with a propagating hydraulic fracture and the typically limited
availability of stress, modulus, and natural-fracture information, it
would be very helpful if other aspects of the microseismicity could
be used to understand the fracturing processing. This is the hope
associated with examining the microseismic waveforms to extract
information about the source of the microseism, relating the
behavior of the source mechanism to the geomechanics, and deter-
mining either fracture or reservoir parameters from this analysis.
There are two types of source analyses that are typically used
for the analysis of microseismic waveforms. One is an analysis of
the source parameters, as, for example, suggested by Brune
(1970) for shear events and refined and expanded by many other
August 2013 SPE Journal
researchers (e.g., Gibowicz et al. 1991). The second is a more
exacting moment-tensor inversion to attempt to fully characterize
The definitions of the moment and magnitude of an earth-
quake, which also apply to a microseism, can be found in any
standard textbook on seismology (Aki and Richards 2009). The
seismic moment is an applicable measure of the strength of the
motion and is given by
Mo ldA: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
where l is the shear modulus of the rock, d is the distance that the
fault plane slips, and A is the area of the slippage. For typical
shale formations, l will be on the order of 2.2  106 psi (approxi-
mately 15 GPa). Because the moment spans many orders of mag-
10,000 nitude, it is usually more convenient to use a log scale (the
moment magnitude), which is similar to the Richter magnitude
with which most people are familiar. The moment magnitude is
given as
2
Mw logMo  16:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3
where the units for this equation are dyne-cm for Mo (Mw is unit-
less). For conventional oilfield units of lbf-ft for Mo, the equation
becomes
2
Mw logMo  9:0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3
Typical moment magnitudes for hydraulic-fracture microse-
isms are 2 to 4, with some reservoirs reaching 1.
Source Parameters. The determination of source parameters is a
straightforward process that can be used on any microseismic data
set. It involves an analysis of the waveform data to produce a dis-
placement spectrum from which a source strength (moment) and
source size (radius) can be estimated. It requires some knowledge
of the source location and the formation velocities, but this infor-
mation is presumably known to locate and map out the microse-
isms. The primary drawback of this approach is that it assumes
that the microseism is a pure shear event; more complicated
mechanisms might not be well-approximated. The advantage is
that any microseism can be quickly analyzed to provide informa-
tion about moment, moment magnitude, and extent of the slip-
page. The moment magnitude, in particular, is a very useful piece
of information for making real-time decisions about the effects of
geohazards, such as faults. This approach has been used to pro-
vide a huge database of information on microseismicity associated
with fracturing (Warpinski et al. 2012).
The displacement spectrum of a microseism typically has a
low-frequency plateau, with a rapid decline after some corner fre-
quency is exceeded. As shown in Fig. 11, a log-log plot of the dis-
placement spectrum can be examined to determine the low-
frequency amplitude Xo and the corner frequency fc. From these
parameters, the moment and size are determined (Brune 1970)
from
4pqRVs3 Xo
Mo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
g
and
KVs
ro : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2pfc
where K is a constant that is approximately 2. It should be
stressed, however, that with the geomechanics understanding
mentioned earlier and the potential for source mechanisms that
are much more complicated than pure shear, there is no certainty
that this analysis will give accurate results. There has never been
a validation test of the size or strength of a hydraulic-fracture-
induced microseism.
773
 0.5
Noisy injection condition
1.0
1.5
Moment Magnitude
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Typical wellbore cultural noise
4.5
5.0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Distance, m
Fig. 12Schematic of magnitude-vs.-distance plot and effect of
noise.
After the moment is calculated, as well as the magnitude from
Eq. 4, a plot of the distribution of moment magnitudes as a func-
tion of distance can be assembled, as shown in Fig. 12. This plot
is very useful for extracting information about viewing distance,
bias, effect of noise on the monitoring conditions, and intersection
with faults. The general characteristics can be calculated theoreti-
cally by inserting Eq. 6 into Eq. 4, in which the amplitude is a
function of intrinsic strength at the source and the distance the
waves travel. It is also important to make a standard attenuation
correction.
Moment-Tensor Inversion. A more complicated approach can
be used to evaluate the orientation of the slippage plane and the
direction of motion, but this approach requires an inversion of am-
plitude and polarization data to determine a full 3  3 moment
tensor that can describe any general motion of the source. There
are numerous references on performing this analysis and a
detailed literature discussing inversion approaches, decomposition
of the results, uncertainty, and other factors (Dufumier and Rivera
1997; Nolen-Hoeksema and Ruff 2001; Vavry[icirc]cuk 2001;
Snokes 2003; Jechumtalova and Sileny 2005; Vavry[icirc]cuk
2007; Warpinski and Du 2010; Du et al. 2011; Du and Warpinski
2011). Generally, uncertainty in estimating the moment tensor
is very high because of a very limited view of the focal sphere,
noise, poorly constrained velocity structure, receiver-coupling
resonances, anisotropy, mislocation, and many other factors.
Furthermore, a full decomposition of the moment tensor is some-
what arbitrary, with a deviatoric component (which contains the
shear and other nonvolumetric mechanisms) that has no unique
decomposition.
Fig. 13 shows in a schematic how a mechanism with both
shear and volumetric opening will create tension and pressure
regions that result in the detected signal and comprise the data
array that is inverted to evaluate the mechanism. It should be clear
from the schematic that a single array does not provide sufficient
data, and even multiple vertical observation arrays might not
allow accurate resolution of the mechanism. Nevertheless, there
are methods to perform the inversion and to obtain estimates of
the focal mechanism that created the microseism. From this infor-
mation, it is anticipated that there might be additional interpreta-
tion potential about the geomechanics of the problem.
The moment-tensor inversion is performed by taking the data
array, as indicated in Fig. 13, in conjunction with the velocity struc-
ture and the calculated wave mechanics to deduce the moment ten-
sor. Because the formulation of the data array is given by (Aki and
Richards 2009)
MTpq  Gnp;q un x; t; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
the determination of the moment tensor requires an inversion. The
Gnp is the Greens function (Aki and Richards 2009), which
774
Fault plane Slip vector
normal
e4 mv
5.e04 mv
1.e3 mv
5.e3 mv
1.e2 mv Tension
Compression
Compression
Data vector
Tension
Fig. 13Schematic of ground motion producing observed data
vector.
describes the behavior of an impulse as it traverses the distance
from source to receiver through the formation, with all its
complexities.
For microseismic monitoring, it is expected that the Earth
model is known, or at least approximately known, and the veloc-
ities throughout the model are established through some combina-
tion of logs and direct measurements across the formation.
Nevertheless, considerable uncertainty arises because of the lim-
ited ability to fully determine the Greens function.
Because of the symmetry, the moment tensor can be written as
a six-component vector m, which is the model vector that must be
solved. The u is the data vector, and G is the discrete Greens
function. Depending on the choice of inversion methods (ampli-
tude-based or waveform-based), the data vector and the analysis
from the use of the discrete Greens function will be different.
The inverse problem can all be written as the following:
Gm u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
It is possible to examine the properties of the matrix G to esti-
mate the resolvability of the moment tensor for any geometry, and
this is performed by examining the singular values of the G ma-
trix. The ratio of the largest to the smallest singular value is called
the condition number, and good results can be ensured only if the
condition number is small. The condition number controls the sta-
bility of the inversion process; in general, a smaller condition
number signifies a more stable inversion and a better solution.
The condition number also can be considered a factor that con-
trols the magnification of data uncertainties compared with model
uncertainties. An alternative approach to the inverse problem is to
examine the distribution of the singular values of matrix G. If
there are some very small singular values, and if any true moment
tensor has significant projection into the model space that corre-
sponds to those small values, the moment tensor cannot be re-
solved well. Because the resulting moment tensor needs to be
decomposed into understandable components of shear, volume,
and other factors, nonresolution of any of the components can
result in an erroneous interpretation of the results.
Because of the six independent components of the moment
tensor, it is necessary to have at least two monitoring wells with
several spread-out receiver locations in each well to begin to
August 2013 SPE Journal
 P axis n n
T axis
45
45 u u
Fig. 14Schematic of relationship between fault planes, slippage orientation, and other angles.
adequately resolve the moment tensor (Vavrycuk 2007). Often,
however, even this is not enough because vertical monitor wells
can be inadequately situated to fully resolve the tensor.
After the moment-tensor inversion is complete, the moment
tensor can be uniquely decomposed into a volumetric part and a
deviatoric part. The deviatoric part, however, which contains in-
formation about the fault and slip vectors, cannot be further
decomposed uniquely into force couples. The standard approach
is to divide it into shear components and nonshear components,
termed a compensated linear vector dipole.
The moment-tensor matrix has the form
0 1
m11 m12 m13
MT @ m21 m22 m23 A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
m31 m32 m33
where the lower left-side elements of the matrix have the same
values as the upper right-side elements. After this tensor is
resolved, the volumetric part can be determined from the trace of
the matrix by
1 and whether the mechanisms that are being analyzed are really
MTiso m11 m22 m33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 related to the process to which they are ascribed. Cipolla et al.
3
and the deviatoric part can be determined from
MTdev MT  MTiso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
The angular information needed to fully interpret the results is
obtained from the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the deviatoric
moment-tensor matrix (Dufumier and Rivera 1997; Vavrycuk
2001; Warpinski and Du 2010). The important information is the
fault-plane normal, n, the slip direction u, and the angle between
the slip direction and its normal projection onto the fault plane, a.
These angles are shown in Fig. 14 for cases of pure-shear (left)
and nonpure-shear movement (right). For pure shear, the fault-
plane normal and slip direction are orthogonal, with pressure and
tension axes on the 45 angles. For a nonpure-shear motion, in
which the angle a is nonzero, the fault-plane normal and slippage
vectors are not orthogonal, and the pressure and tension axes are
not on the 45 angles; however, the pressure and tension axes are
still orthogonal.
With this information, it is possible to determine which natural
fractures, bedding planes, or other features are inducing the
microseismicity; the direction of the rock movement; and whether
it is pure shear or has some other aspects to its source mechanism.
The promise of this analysis is that it can provide some reservoir-
characterization information about the weak or permeable slip-
page planes (e.g., natural fractures in the reservoir that are desira-
ble to contact and activate) and potentially about the stress
conditions that started the rock movement. Unfortunately, there
are two very difficult aspects to this problem. One is that there is
large uncertainty in this type of source analysis, and very little
work has been performed to characterize that uncertainty. The
other is that any interpretation of the stress conditions requires the
full geomechanical understanding of the stress changes induced
by fracturing to evaluate the behavior, which makes it a very com-
plex integrated problem.
In one example from the Barnett shale (Warpinski and Du
2010), the fault-plane solutions indicated that much of the fault
August 2013 SPE Journal
T axis
P axis
B axis
movement was along north/south planes, which matches a set of
natural fractures identified by Gale et al. (2007). In addition,
north/south fractures are in a preferred shear orientation, given
the general northeast/southwest fracture azimuth and stress orien-
tation, but the fault-plane solutions still indicated a significant vol-
umetric component in most of those events.
Integrated Diagnostic Information and
Crosschecks on Mechanisms
It is advantageous to bring in other information in any attempt to
link hydraulic-fracture behavior, geomechanics, and source infor-
mation. The simplest method of doing this is by performing back-
of-the-envelope calculations to assess whether any of these
results make any sense, whereas other diagnostic data can provide
different views of the same fracturing process.
Back-of-the-envelope calculations can be used to assess
whether the total fracture size is sensible (either too large or too
small for the injected volume), whether the stimulated reservoir
volume (SRV) or a discrete fracture network is really probable,
(2011) give an example of a simple mass balance to evaluate
whether a microseismic-derived SRV is reasonable. However,
there are other similar checks that can be applied to determine
whether enhanced microseismic interpretations are reasonable
(Warpinski et al. 2012).
Two important features of the microseismicity are readily
determined from a simple source-parameter analysisthe moment
magnitude and the size of the event. Typical event magnitudes for
hydraulic-fracture microseisms are 2 to 4. A 2 microseism
releases approximately 62 J of energy; a very large 1 event
releases just less than 2000 J of energy. A normal treatment might
have several-hundred microseisms ranging across the spectrum,
but a quick calculation of the energy associated with microseis-
micity can be made by assuming there are 500 events, all of which
are 2. The total microseismic energy for all events would be 31
kJ. By comparison, the work put into the hydraulic fracture in a
typical shale treatment is millions to even billions of kilojoules,
depending on rate, volume, and pressure. The microseismicity is
seeing approximately 1 part in 1,000,000 of the energy associated
with the process. Perkins and Krech (1968) give an approximate
equation for the fracture-strain energy, which is only a function of
the fracture volume, in-situ stress, and injection pressure. This
energy is typically on the order of 20% of the energy used at the
surface, but still enormously large compared with the released
microseismic energy. Even if the 500 microseisms were very large
(1), the total energy would be 1000 kJ, and the ratio of microseis-
mic energy to total energy input would be minuscule. Clearly, the
microseismicity is not sufficient to provide any information about
the fracture deformation (opening), which is obviously occurring
nonseismically.
There is also a question of the partitioning of energy release
from the fracture and from the existing in-situ stresses. In the pre-
vious analysis, it is assumed that all the energy released is supplied
by the fracturing processes, but some geothermal stimulations
have shown that the injection of fluid may cause the release of
existing strain energy. In such a case, the microseismicity would
be an even smaller proportion of the input seismic energy.
775

Fault
Fault
Vertical fractures
Horizontal fractures
Both vertical and horizontal fracturest
Fig. 15Example Eagle Ford shale well with combined micro-
deformation and microseismic measurements (after Walser and
Roadarmel 2012).
A similar check can be made on the volume of the microseis-
mic events and whether the SRV can be estimated from micro-
seismic parameters. A 2 microseism that is all shear would have
very negligible volume, but there can be some volumetric compo-
nent to the movement. If it is assumed that all the slippage is
opening (no shear) so that there is the greatest possible volume
associated with the microseism, a 2 event would have a volume
of 0.003 ft3. If there are again 500 of these events, the total vol-
ume is 1.5 ft3 or approximately 0.25 bbl. Compare this volume to
the several-thousand barrels that are injected, and it is again clear
that the microseismicity is not reflecting the fracture deformation
or any network that might be created. Even a treatment with 500
events that were 1 would have a volume of only a few barrels.
The source data derived from the microseisms do not provide
any information about the hydraulic fracture other than marking
locations in which stress and pressure changes induced by the
fracture have created small movements in the rock. This behavior
is fortunate for determining fracture geometry, but reveals nothing
about the fracture itself. However, the geomechanical analysis
mentioned earlier suggests that natural fractures and other features
in the reservoir are activated by the hydraulic fracture, and this in-
formation should be very useful for reservoir characterization and
understanding the stimulated reservoir.
Microdeformation measurementsthe use of tiltmeters or
other strain sensorscan also provide useful complementary in-
formation because they provide information about the actual de-
formation that is induced by the fracture. Astakhov et al. (2012)
and Walser and Roadarmel (2012) show how a dense array of tilt-
meters can be used to extract the areal extent of multistage, multi-
perforation-cluster fracture treatments in horizontal wells, as
shown in Fig. 15. They provide an example of an Eagle Ford shale
well that has horizontal fracture components and also intersects a
fault. The microseismicity associated with the treatments is not
able to resolve whether the fractures are horizontal, vertical, or
some combination of both (this case); thus, it is difficult to evalu-
ate how successful the treatment is likely to be without the micro-
deformation data. The fault interaction is even more interesting
because the tiltmeters do not show any measureable deformation
occurring at the fault. There are very large microseisms induced
along the fault after it is intersected by the hydraulic fracture, but
there does not appear to be any significant volumetric response.
776
1,000.0000
100.0000
Displacement, m
10.0000
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Frequency, Hz
Displacement
0.8
Normalized
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Time, sec
Fig. 16Deformation characteristics of a hydraulic fracture
measured with tiltmeters.
The example in Fig. 15 is also a case in which noise issues
made it very difficult to detect any microseismicity in the first six
or eight stages, but the microdeformation data were still able to
resolve the general fracturing behavior. Whereas there is a gener-
ally good agreement between the microseismicity and the micro-
deformation results in the last half of the treatments, the lack of
any observable deformation around the two major faults is a sur-
prising result.
Even though it should be clear that hydraulic fracturing is pri-
marily a nonseismic quasistatic process, microdeformation data
can be used to show the spectral content of the deformation. Ei-
ther surface tiltmeter or downhole tiltmeter data can be used to
extract the spectral data, but downhole tiltmeters provide a more
compelling case. Fig. 16 shows deformation induced by a hydrau-
lic fracture as determined from downhole tiltmeters at the M-Site
test (Branagan et al. 1996b; Warpinski et al. 1997b). The defor-
mation measured by an array of downhole tiltmeters was inte-
grated to give the fracture opening during a treatment. Because
the determination of the physical amount of opening depends on
uncertain material properties of the reservoir, the data are given
here as a normalized displacement, but this does not affect the
time-variant behavior of the fracture. The lower plot in Fig. 16
shows the integrated fracture opening and closing after shut-in.
The upper plot shows a spectrum of this deformation behavior. It
is clear from the lower plot that the fracture opens very slowly,
but the nonseismic nature of this opening is highlighted by taking
the spectrum. All significant deformation occurs at extremely low
frequencies. If the spectrum is extrapolated to seismic frequen-
cies, the potential for seeing any significant amount of deforma-
tion seismically is extremely small. These results confirm what
was assessed with the back-of-the-envelope check: Microseismic-
ity is not able to provide information about the hydraulic-fracture
deformation, either opening or closing, nor can it provide any
enlightenment about related information, such as proppant distri-
bution. The fracture is predominantly aseismic (Maxwell 2011).
Zoback et al. (2012) also argue that much of the deformation
occurring in shale network fracture systems might also be aseis-
mic, or at least subseismc.
Mayerhofer et al. (2011) give an example in which pressure in-
terference is used during hydraulic fracturing to validate the
microseismic results and to assess the connectivity that might
August 2013 SPE Journal

200
8,500
160
6,800
120
5,100
80
3,400
40
1,700
0 0.0
0 3,900
60,293
Fig. 17Marcellus example showing interference of fracture with offset-well fractures, as deduced from microseismicity and pres-
sure-interference measurements (after Mayerhofer et al. 2011).
develop when treatments in offset wells intersect and interact.
Fig. 17 shows an example of microseismic data (left side) in two
wells for which there is considerable overlap. The southwestern
well was completed first, and the microseisms are shown in yel-
low for all stages. The northeastern well was completed second,
and each individual stage is colored differently. The circles indi-
cate the extent of the microseismicity at the time that pressure
interference was observed in the offset well as a result of the
treatment.
The pressure-interference data are shown in the green curve on
the right side of Fig. 17, along with other treatment data. Some of
the fractures are well-connected, with relatively large pressure
increases in the offset well, whereas others show only a minimal
connection. The pressure rise in the offset well, however, is rela-
tively small compared with the treatment pressure, and the con-
nection likely occurs through some complex fracture system. This
is not a case in which a treatment has directly intersected an offset
well and loaded it with fluid. At least some of these connections
were found to be present during the production of the wells
because there was clear communication that could be correlated
during shut-in periods.
= Packer
Observation well
Fig. 18Example microseismic monitoring of a horizontal well
with packers and ports showing details of separate fracture be-
ginning and growth (after Shaffner et al. 2011).
August 2013 SPE Journal
Well 1H Fracture Stimulation
Slurry flow rate, bbl/min Slurry density, lbm/gal
Surf press (csg), psi Bottomhome press, psi
10.0
4,900
Offset well interference
8.0
4,700
6.0
4,500
4.0
4,300
2.0
4,100
60,812 61,330 61,849 62,367 62,885
Time, min
Even though microseismicity and geomechanics can be linked
to provide a broader understanding of the microseismicity sur-
rounding the entire fracture, the details of the fracturing behavior
at the wellbore are usually obscured because of uncertainty in
event locations that makes it difficult to determine exactly how
the fracture is starting. In these cases, it is helpful to have DTS to
help understand isolation, functioning of valves and sleeves, me-
chanical issues, the number of fractures started, and many other
aspects of the effects of the completion and well positioning
(Huckabee 2009; Holley et al. 2010).
In some cases, it might actually be possible to determine
more-detailed information from the microseismicity. Shaffner
et al. (2011) show a case in a Canadian sedimentary basin in
which it was possible to distinguish individual fractures starting
from an openhole completion system, as shown in Fig. 18.
Because the color coding is by stages, two fractures can be clearly
observed in a few of the stages. In a situation like this, it would
not be necessary to have DTS or other information to understand
the fracturing behavior. However, these are very planar fractures
and do not show much interaction with other reservoir features
that might obscure this kind of detail. Such clarity is not usually
observed in most shale stimulations. Residual microseisms from
previous stages are also evident in the data.
Discussion
Microseismicity associated with hydraulic fracturing is an impor-
tant diagnostic for optimizing field layout, completion methods,
and stimulation designs. Nevertheless, it should be remembered
that microseisms associated with hydraulic fracturing can have
different characteristics than other types of seismicity (e.g.,
mining, construction, geothermal) on the basis of the geomechani-
cal conditions associated with a propagating dilated fracture.
There has never been any first-hand observation of a hydraulic-
fracture microseism, and the exact source mechanism and meth-
ods of analysis of that mechanism are inferred only from indirect
evidence.
Geomechanics suggests that microseismics associated with hy-
draulic fractures are likely to be close to, or in contact with, the
fracturing fluid. This is fortunate because it makes the interpreta-
tion of microseismic measurements much simpler. The one excep-
tion is the region above and below a long fracture with significant
height growth. The tensile zone ahead of the fracture upper and
lower tip extends some distance and, if the stress conditions and
weakness planes are favorable, there could be microseismicity
some distance beyond these tips. The development of such micro-
seismicity does not appear to be a common occurrence, but it is
777
certainly a possibility in some areas. Because the stress does
decay rapidly in the vicinity of the crack tip, the conditions that
induce slippage in this area are most likely to create small micro-
seisms that might be difficult to detect unless the monitor well is
close to the fracture. On the other hand, the tip region along the
length axis of an elongated hydraulic fracture does not have such
a large tensile zone, and microseisms are not likely to extend far
beyond the tip. The difference between the top of the fracture
compared with the length tip is largely a result of geometric fac-
tors associated with an elongated fracture. Radial fractures would
have the same conditions all around the perimeter.
The geomechanics suggests that there might be different
source behavior in the tip region compared with the leakoff
region. The leakoff region is highly stabilized because of the com-
pressive stress field orthogonal to the fracture; thus, rock move-
ment is enhanced by leakoff of high-pressure fluid into planes of
weakness in the reservoir, and any microseisms can have some
volumetric component caused by the presence of fluid pressure.
On the other hand, microseisms that occur ahead of the tip have
no contact with the fracturing fluid, and it is expected that these
would more likely be mostly shear movement. Unfortunately,
without observational evidence, this behavioral dichotomy is only
speculation.
The geomechanical conditions that apply to multistage, multi-
perforation-cluster stimulations are further complicated by the
presence of numerous interacting hydraulic fractures, but the gen-
eral behavior is similar. Regions broadside to the fractures are sta-
bilized by the compressive stress, and microseisms occur only in
this region because of fluid leakoff. Areas around the fracture tip
are mostly unstable, although the presence of longer fractures can
somewhat suppress tip activity in shorter fractures. The addition
of a second set of hydraulic fractures orthogonal to the first one
adds further complexity, with one of the more interesting features
being a stabilization of the area around it. This stabilized area is
relatively large and suggests that it should be difficult to open
closely spaced orthogonal network fractures and to induce much
microseismicity around those fractures other than right around the
tip. The addition of diverting materials, the application of thin flu-
ids, the use of simultaneous or zipper fracturing, the addition of
short shutdowns, and many other techniques have been used to try
to improve the amount of fracturing in the reservoir and the devel-
opment of a network with large amounts of surface energy.
Because there is still much about microseismicity that is
uncertain, validation tests have been very important for assessing
the reliability of such information for understanding fractures.
Integrated diagnostic tests at the M-Site fracture-diagnostics labo-
ratory showed that the microseismicity provided accurate length,
height, and azimuth information. Nevertheless, this site is not rep-
resentative of all reservoirs, and continued validation needs to be
performed with various combinations of diagnostics. An example
is the detailed testing performed in some initial Barnett-shale
stimulations, in which surface and downhole tiltmeters and
monitoring in offset wells were used to validate the concept of
network fracture systems in which significant amounts of fluid
are moved laterally through auxiliary fracture planes that are not
aligned with the hydraulic-fracture azimuth.
The analysis of source parameters has routinely been per-
formed in microseismic monitoring and has been a critical aspect
of understanding fracture-viewing distance, biased measurements,
interaction with geohazards, and other factors associated with
stimulations and completions. Most of this information is derived
from a spectral analysis that is routinely performed on every
microseismic event that is analyzed. More complex analyses of
source mechanisms, such as in moment-tensor inversion, can pro-
vide additional information about the orientation of the weakness
planes that are shearing or otherwise opening. Even though this
type of analysis can provide an estimate of the volumetric compo-
nent, the uncertainty caused by coupling, velocity-model limita-
tions, anisotropy, noise, mislocation, and many other factors
makes such an analysis of uncertain value. The most important
product derived from moment-tensor inversion is the orientation
778
of the fault planes, which should help develop an understanding
of the reservoir and the natural fractures and other features that
are being activated by the stimulation. Potentially, this informa-
tion could help in understanding the stress state in the reservoir
and how it is perturbed by the fracturing (e.g., the geomechanics).
Although it would be valuable if source mechanisms could
provide information about the mechanics of the hydraulic fracture
(e.g., opening, closing, and proppant), a simple back-of-the-enve-
lope calculation shows that both the energy and volume associ-
ated with microseismicity are an insignificant fraction of the total
energy and volume introduced into the stimulation. Hydraulic
fractures are almost entirely aseismic. The analysis of source
mechanisms should concentrate on what those data tell us about
the reservoir.
Integrated diagnostic projects are usually valuable in providing
different views of the fracture behavior, such as with microdefor-
mation and microseismicity, or microseismicity and DTS. For
example, it is very difficult to evaluate how much horizontal frac-
turing might be occurring with microseismicity alone. Surface tilt-
meter arrays are extremely useful for identifying different fracture
components, and such information might be critical to economi-
cally develop a reservoir. In addition, the contribution of faults to
production might be difficult to establish with microseismicity
alone (faults intersections almost always induce large amounts of
microseismicity), but microdeformation can be used to assess
whether there is any volumetric change associated with the fault
interaction. Other aspects of the fracturing, such as details of the
beginning and the workings of the completion system, can be
evaluated with DTS and tracers. Clearly, performing DFITs, mon-
itoring pressure interference, and the loading of offset wells also
provide useful information that can be integrated with the other
fracture-diagnostics data.
Conclusions
Microseismic monitoring is a very useful tool for optimizing field
development, completion designs, and stimulations. With geome-
chanics considerations, the locations of the microseisms are gen-
erally expected to be very close to the hydraulic fracture and can
be used to accurately determine dimensions and growth behavior.
The one possible exception is the potential for stress-induced
microseismicity above and below a large fracture with significant
length and height dimensions, and this factor should always be
considered when analyzing microseismic data.
Microseismic-source analysis, such as the Brune (1970) spec-
tral analysis, provides much useful information that can be used
for quality control and identification of geohazards. More compli-
cated moment-tensor inversion can provide important information
about natural fractures and other weakness planes in the rock.
Unfortunately, moment-tensor inversion with microseismic data
does not provide any information about the hydraulic fracture
itself. The hydraulic fracture is essentially aseismic.
Integrated diagnostics provide value by giving different views
of the fracture and allowing different aspects of fracture behavior
to be evaluated. Used in conjunction with microseismicity, these
other diagnostic techniques can illuminate aspects of the fractur-
ing process that cannot be divined from microseismicity alone.
Nomenclature
A microseismic-source area, L2, ft2, m2
d microseismic-source movement, L, ft, m
fc corner frequency, T1, Hz
g radiation-pattern factor
G Greens function for amplitude
K geometric factor for size calculation
mi elements of the moment tensor, mL2/t, lbf-ft, dyne-cm
Mo seismic moment, mL2/t, lbf-ft, dyne-cm
MT moment tensor, mL2/t, lbf-ft, dyne-cm
Mw moment magnitude
R distance to microseismic event, L, ft, m
Ro microseismic-source radius, L, ft, m
August 2013 SPE Journal
 u amplitude data for moment-tensor inversion, L/t, ft/sec,
m/s
Vs shear-wave velocity, L/t, ft/sec, m/s
l shear modulus, m/Lt, psi, GPa
q rock density, m/L3, lbm/ft3, kg/m3
Xo low-frequency amplitude of displacement Fourier trans-
form, Lt, ft/sec, m/s
Acknowledgment
The authors thank Halliburton for permission to publish this paper.
References
Agarwal, K., Mayerhofer, M.J., and Warpinski, N.R. 2012. Impact of Geo-
mechanics on Microseismicity. Paper SPE 152835 presented at the
SPE/EAGE European Unconventional Resources Conference and Ex-
hibition, Vienna, Austria, 2022 March. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
152835-MS.
Aki, K. and Richards, P.G. 2002. Quantitative Seismology, second edition.
Sausalito, California: University Science Books.
Albright, J.N. and Pearson, C.F. 1982. Acoustic Emissions as a Tool for
Hydraulic Fracture Location: Experience at the Fenton Hill Hot Dry
Rock Site. SPEJ 22 (4): 523530. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/9509-PA.
Astakhov, D.K., Roadarmel, W.H., and Nanyakkara, A.S. 2012. A New
Method of Characterizing the Stimulated Reservoir Volume Using
Tiltmeter-Based Surface Microdeformation Measurements. Paper SPE
151017 presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Con-
ference, The Woodlands, Texas, 68 February. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/151017-MS.
Branagan, P.T., Peterson, R.E., Warpinski, N.R. et al. 1996a. Characterization
of a Remotely Intersected Set of Hydraulic Fractures: Results of Intersec-
tion Well No. 1-B, GRI/DOE Multi-Site Project. Paper SPE 36452 pre-
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, 69 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/36452-MS.
Branagan, P.T., Warpinski, N.R., Engler, B.P. et al. 1996b. Measuring the
Hydraulic Fracture-Induced Deformation of Reservoirs and Adjacent
Rocks Employing a Deeply Buried Inclinometer Array: GRI/DOE
Multi-Site Project. Paper SPE 36451 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 69 October.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/36451-MS.
Branagan, P.T., Warpinski, N.R., Peterson, R.E. et al. 1997. Propagation
of a Hydraulic Fracture into a Remote Observation Wellbore: Results
of C-Sand Experimentation at the GRI/DOE M-Site Project. Paper
SPE 38574 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 58 October. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/38574-MS.
Brune, J.N. 1970. Tectonic Stress and the Spectra of Seismic Shear Waves
from Earthquakes. J. Geophys. Res. 75 (26): 49975009. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1029/JB075i026p04997.
Chudnovsky, A., Fan, J., Shulkin, Y. et al. 1996. A New Hydraulic Frac-
ture Tip Mechanism in a Statistically Homogeneous Medium. Paper
SPE 36442 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 69 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
36442-MS.
Cipolla, C., Maxwell, S., Mack, M. et al. 2011. A Practical Guide to Inter-
preting Microseismic Measurements. Paper SPE 144067 presented at
the North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition,
The Woodlands, Texas, 1416 June. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
144067-MS.
Du, J. and Warpinski, N. 2011. Uncertainty in Fault Plane Solutions from
Moment Tensor Inversion. Geophysics 76 (6): WC65WC75.
Du, J., Zimmer, U., and Warpinski, N. 2011. Fault-Plane Solutions from
Moment Tensor Inversion for Microseismic Events Using Single-Well
and Multi-Well Data. CSEG Recorder 36 (8): 2228.
Dufumier, H. and Rivera, L. 1997. On the Resolution of the Isotropic
Component in Moment Tensor Inversion. Geophys. J. Int. 131 (3):
595606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06601.x.
East, L., Soliman, M.Y., and Augustine, J. 2011. Methods for Enhancing
Far-Field Complexity in Fracturing Operations. SPE Prod & Oper 26
(3): 291303. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/133380-PA.
August 2013 SPE Journal
Fairhurst, C. and Cornet, F. 1981. Rock Fracture and Fragmentation. Paper
81-0021 presented at the 22nd U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 29 June2 July.
Fehler, M. 1989. Stress Control of Seismicity Patterns Observed during
Hydraulic Fracturing Experiments at the Fenton Hill Hot Dry Rock
Geothermal Energy Site, New Mexico. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstracts 26 (34): 211219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0148-9062(89)91971-2.
Fisher, M.K., Wright, C.A., Davidson, B.M. et al. 2002. Integrating Frac-
ture Mapping Technologies to Optimize Stimulations in the Barnett
Shale. Paper SPE 77441 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September2 October.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/77441-MS.
Gale, J.F.W., Reed, R.M., and Holder, J. 2007. Natural fractures in the
Barnett shale and their importance for hydraulic fracture treatments.
AAPG Bull. 91 (4): 603622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/11010606061.
Gibowicz, S.J., Young, R.P., Talebi, S. et al. 1991. Source Parameters of
Seismic Events at the Underground Research Laboratory in Manitoba,
Canada: Scaling Relations for Events with Moment Magnitude
Smaller than 2. Bull. Seismolog. Soc. Am. 81 (4): 11571182.
Green, A.E. and Sneddon, I.N. 1950. The Distribution of Stress in the
Neighbourhood of a Flat Elliptical Crack in an Elastic Solid. Math
Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 46 (1): 159163. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/ S0305004100025585.
Holley, E.H., Zimmer, U., Mayerhofer, M. et al. 2010. Integrated Analysis
Combining Microseismic Mapping and Fiber-Optic Distributed Tem-
perature Sensing (DTS). Paper CSUG/SPE 136565 presented at the
Canadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Con-
ference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 1921 October. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/136565-MS.
Huckabee, P. 2009. Optic Fiber Distributed Temperature for Fracture
Stimulation Diagnostics and Well Performance Evaluation. Paper SPE
118831 presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Con-
ference, The Woodlands, Texas, 1921 January. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/118831-MS.
Jechumtalova, Z. and Sileny, J. 2005. Amplitude Ratios for Complete
Moment Tensor Retrieval. Geophys. Res. Lett. 322 (22): L22303.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023967.
Maxwell, S.C. 2011. What Microseismic Does and Does Not Indicate
About Hydraulic Fractures. Paper presented at the 73rd EAGE Confer-
ence and Exhibition Incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2011, Vienna, Aus-
tria, 2326 May.
Maxwell, S.C. and Cipolla, C. 2011. What Does Microseismicity Tell Us
About Hydraulic Fracturing. Paper SPE 146932 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 30
October2 November. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/146932-MS.
Mayerhofer, M.J., Stegent, N.A., Barth, J.O. et al. 2011. Integrating Frac-
ture Diagnostics and Engineering Data in the Marcellus Shale. Paper
SPE 145463 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 30 October2 November. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/145463-MS.
Nolen-Hoeksema, R.C. and Ruff, L.J. 2001. Moment Tensor Inversion of
Microseisms From the B-Sand Propped Hydrofracture, M-Site, Colo-
rado. Tectonophysics 336 (1): 163181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0040-1951(01)00100-7.
Nolte, K.G. and Smith, M.B. 1981. Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures.
J. Pet Tech 33 (9): 17671775. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/8297-PA.
Palmer, I.D., Moschovidis, Z.A., and Schaefer, A. 2012. Microseismic
Clouds: Modeling and Implications. Paper SPE 154903 presented at
the SPE Americas Unconventional Resources Conference, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, 57 June. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/154903-MS.
Perkins, T.K. and Krech, W.W. 1968. The Energy Balance Concept of Hy-
draulic Fracturing. SPE J. 8 (1): 112. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/1901-
PA.
Roussel, N.P. and Sharma, M.M. 2011. Optimizing Fracture Spacing and
Sequencing in Horizontal-Well Fracturing. SPE Prod & Oper 26 (2):
173184. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/127986-PA.
Rutledge, J.T. and Phillips, W.S. 2003. Hydraulic Stimulation of Natural
Fractures as Revealed by Induced Microearthquakes, Carthage Cotton
Valley Gas Field, East Texas. Geophysics 68 (2): 441452. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1567212.
779
Rutledge, J.T., Phillips, W.S., and Mayerhofer, M.J. 2004. Faulting
Induced by Forced Fluid Injection and Fluid Flow Forced by Faulting:
An Interpretation of Hydraulic-Fracture Microseismicity, Carthage
Cotton Valley Gas Field, Texas. Bull. of the Seismolog. Soc. of Am. 94
(5): 18171830. http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/012003257.
Shaffner, J., Cheng, A., Simms, S. et al. 2011. The Advantage of Incorpo-
rating Microseismic Data into Fracture Models. Paper CSUG/SPE
148780 presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources Confer-
ence, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1517 November. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/148780-MS.
Sneddon, I.N. 1946. The Distribution of Stress in the Neighbourhood of a
Crack in an Elastic Solid. Proc. Royal Soc. London, Ser. A. 187
(1009): 229260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1946.0077.
Sneddon, I.N. and Elliott, H.A. 1946. The Opening of a Griffith Crack
Under Internal Pressure. Quart. Appl. Math. 4: 229267.
Snokes, J.A. 2003. FOCMEC: FOCal MEChanism. Determinations. In
International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology,
ed. W.H.K. Lee, P. Jennings, C. Kisslinger, and H. Kanamori, Chap.
85.12, 2930. New York: Elsevier.
Vavrycuk, V. 2001. Inversion for Parameters of Tensile Earthquakes. J.
Geophys. Res. 106 (B8): 1633916355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/
2001JB000372.
Vavrycuk, V. 2007. On the retrieval of moment tensors from borehole
data. Geophys. Prospecting 55 (3): 381391. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00624.x.
Walser, D.W. and Roadarmel, W.H. 2012. Integrating Microseismic with
Surface Microdeformation Monitoring to Characterize Induced Frac-
tures in the Immature Eagle Ford Shale. Paper ARMA 12-594 pre-
sented at the 46th U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium,
Chicago, Illinois, 2427 June.
Walter, W.R. and Brune, J.N. 1993. Spectra of Seismic Radiation from a
Tensile Crack. J. Geophys. Res. 98 (B3): 44494459.
Warpinski, N. 2009. Microseismic Monitoring: Inside and Out. J. Pet
Tech 61 (11): 8085. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/118537-PA.
Warpinski, N.R., Branagan, P.T., Engler, B.P. et al. 1997b. Evaluation of
a Downhole Tiltmeter Array for Monitoring Hydraulic Fractures. Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 34 (34): 318.e1318.e13. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S1365-1609(97)00071-3.
Warpinski, N.R., Branagan, P.T., Peterson, R.E. et al. 1997a. Microseis-
mic and Deformation Imaging of Hydraulic Fracture Growth and Ge-
ometry in the C Sand Interval, GRI/DOE M-Site Project. Paper SPE
38573 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, San Antonio, Texas, 58 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
38573-MS.
Warpinski, N.R., Branagan, P.T., Peterson, R.E. et al. 1998a. Mapping
Hydraulic Fracture Growth and Geometry Using Microseismic Events
Detected by a Wireline Retrievable Accelerometer Array. Paper SPE
40014 presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 1518 March. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/40014-MS.
Warpinski, N.R., Branagan, P.T., Peterson, R.E. et al. 1998b. An Interpre-
tation of M-Site Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostic Results. Paper SPE
39950 presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low-Perme-
ability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 58 April. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/39950-MS.
Warpinski, N.R. and Du, J. 2010. Source-Mechanism Studies on Microseis-
micity Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing. Paper SPE 135254 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy,
1922 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/135254-MS.
Warpinski, N.R., Du, J., and Zimmer, U. 2012. Measurements of Hydraulic-
Fracture-Induced Seismicity in Gas Shales. Paper SPE 151597 presented
at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Wood-
lands, Texas, 68 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/151597-MS.
Warpinski, N.R., Wolhart, S.L., and Wright, C.A. 2004. Analysis and Pre-
diction of Microseismicity Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing. SPE J. 9
(1): 2433. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/ 71649-PA.
Warpinski, N.R., Wright, T.B., Uhl, J.E. et al. 1996. Microseismic Moni-
toring of the B-Sand Hydraulic Fracture Experiment at the DOE/GRI
Multi-Site Project. Paper SPE 36450 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 69 October.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/36450-MS.
780
Zoback, M.D., Kohli, A., Das, I. et al. 2012. The Importance of Slow Slip
on Faults During Hydraulic Fracturing Stimulation of Shale Gas Res-
ervoirs. Paper SPE 155476 presented at the SPE Americas Unconven-
tional Resources Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 57 June.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/155476-MS.
Norm Warpinski is a Halliburton Fellow at PinnacleA Hallibur-
ton Service in Houston, where he works on the development
of new tools and analyses for hydraulic-fracture mapping, res-
ervoir monitoring, hydraulic-fracture design and analysis, and
integrated solutions for reservoir development. He joined Pin-
nacle in 2005 after previously working as a Senior Scientist at
Sandia National Laboratories from 1977 to 2005 on various
projects in oil and gas, geothermal, carbon sequestration,
waste repositories, and other geomechanics issues. Warpinski
has extensive experience in various types of hydraulic-fracture
mapping and modeling and has been involved in large-scale
field experiments from both the hardware and software sides.
He also has worked on formation evaluation, geomechanics,
natural fractures, in-situ stresses, rock behavior, and rock test-
ing. Warpinski holds MS and PhD degrees in mechanical engi-
neering from the University of Illinois, Champaign/Urbana, and
a BS degree in mechanical engineering from Illinois Institute of
Technology.
Mike Mayerhofer is the Director of the Hydraulic Fracturing
Center of Excellence at PinnacleA Halliburton Service in
Houston. He leads a team of engineers, providing advanced
fracture-engineering solutions with special emphasis on
unconventional shale and tight gas plays. His responsibilities
include the application of tiltmeter and microseismic hydrau-
lic-fracture mapping results for optimizing fracture completion,
well-placement and infill-drilling strategies, the design and
evaluation of hydraulic-fracturing treatments, reservoir engi-
neering, and integrated field studies. Mayerhofers 20-year
involvement with hydraulic fracturing and reservoir engineer-
ing includes fundamental research and real-field applications
in various global producing areas, resulting in more than 50
technical papers and journal articles. Before joining Pinnacle
in 1997, he worked for Union Pacific Resources in Fort Worth,
Texas. Mayerhofer holds a PhD degree in petroleum engineer-
ing from Mining University of Leoben in Austria. He was a mem-
ber of the SPE Well Completions Committee from 1998 to 2001
and served on the JPT Editorial Committee. Mayerhofer was
the recipient of the 2009 Completions Optimization and Tech-
nology Award for the SPE Gulf Coast North America Region.
Karn Agarwal is a technical professional in Pinnacles Hydrau-
lic Fracturing Center of Excellence in Houston. His responsibil-
ities include geomechanical modeling, design and analysis of
hydraulic-fracturing treatments, engineering analysis with frac-
ture diagnostics such as pressure analysis, DTS, tiltmeter, and
microseismic mapping with special emphasis on unconven-
tional shale and tight gas plays. Agarwal holds a BTech
degree in civil engineering from the Indian Institute of Technol-
ogy, Roorkee, India, and an MS degree in petroleum engi-
neering from the University of Texas at Austin.
Jing Du has been working on a wide range of projects in the
field of reservoir geomechanics (reservoir monitoring, fracture
mapping and modeling) and geophysics (inversion, seismic ray
tracing, velocity optimization, anisotropy, source-mechanism
and seismic-waveform modeling) for more than 15 years. In
November 2012, she joined Total E&P Research and Technology
in Houston, where she leads the R&D effort in microseismicity for
unconventional resources with links to geomechanics and rock
physics. Before the aforementioned employment, Du was a
Principal Technical AdviserEngineering Applications at Pinna-
cleA Halliburton Service in Houston, where she focused on the
development of hydraulic-fracture mapping and reservoir
imaging with microdeformation (Tilt, InSAR, and GPS) and
microseismic technology. She holds a BS degree in applied
mathematics and mechanics, an MS degree in solid mechanics
from Peking University, and a PhD degree in petroleum engi-
neering from the University of Texas at Austin. She is a registered
professional engineer in petroleum engineering in Texas. Du
served on the SPE Well Stimulation Committee from 2009 to 2011
and the SPE Well Completion Committee from 2012 to 2013.
August 2013 SPE Journal