Sunteți pe pagina 1din 42

Microseismic Mapping of Hydraulic Fracture Stimulations

(Applications, Observations, and Conclusions for Optimizing Production)

Larry Griffin Pinnacle Technologies

SPE Egyptian Section Meeting Cairo, Egypt

6 December 2006

Presentation Outline

I. Introduction

II. Microseismic Technology and Deployment

III. Application of MS Technology

IV. Appling MS mapping in Egypt

V. Conclusions

VI. Questions

Introduction

The Evolution of Hydraulic Fracturing

First Frac was in 1947

Rapidly proved to be one of the most cost effective production enhancement techniques

Tremendous advancements made since inception:

Equipment

Designer Fluids and Proppants

Wide Range of Applications

Most reservoirs could benefit from placing an optimally designed stimulation

Over 70% of wells in North America Frac

Stimulation Models

Now most of the models are 3D

Pressure matching

What is Missing?

We Know Everything About Fractures Now Except…

Poor Interval Coverage Out-of-zone growth Partial Zonal Coverage T-shaped Twisting fractures fractures Perfectly
Poor Interval
Coverage
Out-of-zone
growth
Partial Zonal
Coverage
T-shaped
Twisting
fractures
fractures
Perfectly confined frac
Horizontal
fractures
Multiple fractures
dipping from vertical

We Know Everything About Fractures Now Except…

The fracture half-length, the fracture height, the fracture orientation,

and the fracture location once it leaves the

wellbore

Fracture Mapping (Monitoring)

The Current Advancement Frontier Technology for Fracturing

Fracture model prediction Calibr ated fr actur emodel matches micr oseismic mapping r esults
Fracture model prediction
Calibr ated fr actur emodel matches
micr oseismic mapping r esults
GR NEU T Rock type (Stress (psi (M odulus (psi Pore Pe rmea (Concent ration
GR
NEU T
Rock type
(Stress (psi
(M odulus (psi
Pore
Pe rmea
(Concent ration of Proppant in Fractu re (lb/ft²
(Width Profile (in
20
20 0
0.5
0
50 00
7000
0
0. 5
SaSandnd
Sand
Sa nd
9
200
9200
92 00
920 0
SaSandnd
SaSandnd
9
300
9300
93 00
930
0
SaSandnd
SaSandnd
9
400
9400
94 00
940
0
SaSandnd
Sand
Sa nd
9
500
9500
95 00
950
0
S Shal e
hale
SanSandd 22
9
600
9600
96 00
960
0
SanSandd 22
9
700
9700
97 00
970
0
9
800
9800
98 00
980 0
S
hale
Shal e
( P
ro p p an t C o n cen tratio
n (lb /ft²
9
900
9900
99 00
990 0
0
0.15 0 .30 0.45
0.60 0 .75 0.90
1.1
1. 2
1.4
1.5
Sa Sand nd
100
200
300
0.5 0
0. 5
What are the actual dimensions of the fracture and where is it located? Far-field Fracture
What are the actual dimensions of the
fracture and where is it located?
Far-field Fracture mapping technologies for answering this question are
now where the most important advancements are being made in
hydraulic fracturing.

Motivation for Frac Engineering & Diagnostics

Hydraulic fracturing is done for well

stimulation

NOT

for proppant disposal

for Frac Engineering & Diagnostics Hydraulic fracturing is done for well stimulation NOT for proppant disposal
Microseismic Far-Field Fracture Deformation Acoustic, Micro-Earthquake, Monitoring (Tilt) Passive Seismic Monitoring
Microseismic
Far-Field Fracture
Deformation
Acoustic, Micro-Earthquake,
Monitoring
(Tilt)
Passive Seismic Monitoring

Microseismic Technology and Deployment

Microseismic Mapping

Concept/Principle

Microseisms Originate in an Envelope Surrounding the Fracture

Microseisms Originate in an Envelope Surrounding the Fracture
P S
P
S

Slippage Emits Both P & S Waves (Compressional & Shear)

Velocities Are Different P Wave > S Wave

Detected At Tri-Axial Receiver

SHEAR SLIPPAGE

S(t 1 ) P(t 1 ) S(t ) Y X 2 P(t ) RECEIVER 2
S(t
1 )
P(t
1 )
S(t
)
Y
X
2
P(t
)
RECEIVER
2

Microseismic Mapping

Obtaining Data From an Offset Observation Well • Fiber optic wireline • 12-20 Levels, 3
Obtaining Data From an Offset Observation Well
Fiber optic wireline
12-20 Levels, 3 Component
Sensors
Mechanically Coupled
Can be deployed under pressure

Microseismic Mapping

Determining Distance and Elevation

Slippage Emits Both P & S Waves (Compressional & Shear)

Velocities Are Different P Wave > S Wave

Detected At Tri-Axial Receiver

SHEAR SLIPPAGE

S(t 1 ) P(t ) 1 X S(t ) Y 2 P(t ) RECEIVER 2
S(t
1 )
P(t )
1
X
S(t
)
Y
2
P(t
)
RECEIVER
2
P S
P
S
S Wave • Detected At Tri-Axial Receiver SHEAR SLIPPAGE S(t 1 ) P(t ) 1 X

Microseismic Mapping

Example Recorded MS Event

Microseismic Mapping Example Recorded MS Event

Microseismic Mapping

Velocity Model

V Receivers 1 V 2 Microseismic Event V 3 Ray Paths V 4
V
Receivers
1
V
2
Microseismic Event
V
3
Ray Paths
V
4

Microseismic Mapping

Azimuth Determination

The Direction to a Microseismic Source Is Found by Examining the Particle Motion of the P Wave, Which Is Always Directed Radially Outward from the Source.

t

x

y

0

0

0

1

10

4

2

20

9

3

30 14

4

36 18

5

30 16

6

20 12

7

10

8

8

0

4

9 -10

0

10

-20 -6

11

-30 -12

12

-34 -18

13

-30 -18

14

-20 -14

15

-10 -8

16

0

-4

While Many Techniques Are Available to Determine the Direction, the Simplest Representation Is a Hodogram, which is

a Crossplot of the Amplitudes.

Data

Waveform

x y Amplitude
x
y
Amplitude

Time

Example Hodogram

Angle from x Axis Y Amplitude
Angle
from
x Axis
Y Amplitude

X Amplitude

of the Amplitudes. Data Waveform x y Amplitude Time Example Hodogram Angle from x Axis Y

Microseismic Mapping

Hodogram Analysis

-25.5 -31.4 -37.0 -34.4 -34.4 -28.4 -28.3 -32.6 -38.0 -31.1 -38.2 -30.9 Avg=-32.5 St Dev=3.9
-25.5
-31.4
-37.0
-34.4
-34.4
-28.4
-28.3
-32.6
-38.0
-31.1
-38.2
-30.9
Avg=-32.5
St Dev=3.9

Appling Microseismic Mapping

Determining Fracture Growth

East Texas Examples

Bossier and Cotton Valley

Microseismic Mapping Results – Taylor Sands

9800 Well B Well A 10000 10200 10400 Events related to casing deformation 10600 10800
9800
Well B
Well A
10000
10200
10400
Events related to
casing deformation
10600
10800
11000
C-Lime Mar ker
11200
L1
L2
11400
L3
Bossier Shale
11600
11800
12000
Distance (ft)
-1600
-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
1200 1000 800 Observation Well B 600 400 200 0 -200 -400 Well A -600
1200
1000
800
Observation
Well B
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
Well A
-600
-800
N71°E
-1000
1500’ Xf
-1200
-1400
-1800
-1600
-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
Depth (ft)

APC Anderson #2

York Frac – Map View

600 DE-PS26-01NT41121 500 SPE 89876 400 300 Anderson #2 200 550 ft* 100 275 ft*
600
DE-PS26-01NT41121
500
SPE 89876
400
300
Anderson #2
200
550 ft*
100
275 ft*
0
-100
Azimuth = N91 o E
-200
-300
Anderson #1
-400
-500
-600
* wing lengths from York-only events
-700
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
West-East (ft)
South-North (ft)

SPE 84876

APC Anderson #2

York Frac – Side View

12500 12600 12700 12800 Communicating fault between the York and Bonner 12900 Bonner 13000 13100
12500
12600
12700
12800
Communicating fault between the
York and Bonner
12900
Bonner
13000
13100
York
13200
13300
Non-communicating fault,
13400
attenuation noted in MS signals
DE-PS26-01NT41121
SPE 89876
13500
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
Depth (ft)

Distance Along Fracture (ft)

SPE 84876

APC Anderson #2 Map View

York and Bonner Fracs

600 DE-PS26-01NT41121 500 SPE 89876 400 300 York Azimuth = N91 o E Bonner Azimuth
600
DE-PS26-01NT41121
500
SPE 89876
400
300
York Azimuth = N91 o E
Bonner Azimuth = N87 o E
200
100
0
-100
-200
Anderson #2
-300
Anderson #1
-400
-500
-600
York Frac – Blue Events
Bonner Frac – Red Events
-700
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
West-East (ft)
South-North (ft)

SPE 84876

APC Anderson #2 Side View

York and Bonner Fracs

12200 York Frac – Blue Events DE-PS26-01NT41121 12300 SPE 89876 Bonner Frac – Red Events
12200
York Frac – Blue Events
DE-PS26-01NT41121
12300
SPE 89876
Bonner Frac – Red Events
12400
12500
12600
BM
12700
Moore
12800
Communicating fault
from the Bonner to the
12900
Moore and BM
13000
Bonner
13100
13200
York
13300
Communicating fault between
York and Bonner
13400
Non-communicating fault in
the York, attenuation noted in
MS signals
13500
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Depth (ft)

Distance Along Fracture (ft)

SPE 84876

South - North (ft)

South - North (ft)

-600

-600

-600

-500

-900

-700

-800

-900

-500

-500

-900

-700

-800

-700

-800

-1000

-1000

-1000

Plan View Well B Stimulation

1100

1100

1100

1000

1000

1000

900

900

900

800

800

800

700

700

700

600

600

600

500

500

500

400

400

400

300

300

300

200

200

200

100

100

100

0

0

0

-100

-100

-100

-200

-200

-200

-300

-300

-300

-400

-400

-400

Azimuth=N81E

Azimuth=N81E

615’

615’

9:0 5-10:08a m

9:0 5-10:08a m

10:08-11:05 am

10:08-11:05 am

11:05-12:13 pm

11:05-12:13 pm

SPE 84489

Well B

Well B

Xf = 615’ West and 750’ East

750’

750’

Late events after

Late events after

net pressure drop

net pressure drop

Prop Conc (ppg) Net Pressure (psi) Observed Net (psi) Slurry Rate (bpm) 10.0 100 Observation
Prop Conc (ppg)
Net Pressure (psi)
Observed Net (psi)
Slurry Rate (bpm)
10.0
100
Observation Well
Observation Well
8.0
80
6.0
60
4.0
40
2.0
West - East (ft)
West - East (ft)
West - East (ft)
20
0.0
0.0
40.0
80.0
120.0
160.0
200
-400
-400
-400
-300
-300
-300
-200
-200
-200
-100
-100
-100
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500

Time (min)

Side/Edge View Well B

11700 11700 11700 11700 11700 11700 9:05-10:08am 9:05-10:08am 9:05-10:08am 11800 11800 11800 11800 11800
11700
11700
11700
11700
11700
11700
9:05-10:08am
9:05-10:08am
9:05-10:08am
11800
11800
11800
11800
11800
11800
10:08-11:05am
10:08-11:05am
10:08-11:05am
11900
11900
11900
11:05-12:13pm
11:05-12:13pm
11:05-12:13pm
11900
11900
11900
GR
GR
GR
pe rfs
pe rfs
pe rfs
12000
12000
12000
12000
12000
12000
450’
450’
450’
Cotton Valley
Cotton Valley
Cotton Valley
12100
12100
12100
12100
12100
12100
12200
12200
12200
12200
12200
12200
12300
12300
12300
12300
12300
12300
615’
615’
615’
750’
750’
750’
12400
12400
12400
12400
12400
12400
B.M.
B.M.
B.M.
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
12500
Moore
Moore
Moore
12600
12600
12600
12600
12600
12600
12700
12700
12700
12700
12700
12700
12800
12800
12800
12800
12800
12800
Bonner
Bonner
Bonner
12900
12900
12900
12900
12900
12900
Prop Conc (ppg)
York
York
York
Late events after
Late events after
Late events after
Net Pressure (psi)
13000
13000
13000
13000
13000
13000
Observed Net (psi)
Slurry Rate (bpm)
10.0
net p ressure drop
net p ressure drop
net p ressure drop
100
13100
13100
13100
13100
13100
13100
13200
13200
13200
8.0
13200
13200
13200
80
13300
13300
13300
13300
13300
13300
6.0
60
Distance Along Fracture (ft)
Distance Along Fracture (ft)
Distance Along Fracture (ft)
Distance Across Fractu re (ft)
Distance Across Fractu re (ft)
Distance Across Fractu re (ft)
4.0
- 8 perf clusters in the BM/Moore York
40
- Xf = 615’ West and 750’ East
- H = 450’
2.0
20
- Note events in Shales
- Minor stimulation of the York
0.0
0.0
40.0
80.0
120.0
160.0
200
SPE 84489
Time (min)
MD
MD
MD
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
-800
-800
-800
-700
-700
-700
-600
-600
-600
-500
-500
-500
-400
-400
-400
-300
-300
-300
-200
-200
-200
-100
-100
-100
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
MD
MD
MD
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
-300
-300
-300
-200
-200
-200
-100
-100
-100
0
0
0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300

Appling Microseismic Mapping

Model Calibration

Fracture Model Calibration?

History match the OBSERVED net pressure responses with the DIRECTLY measured fracture dimensions using a 3D fracture simulator to develop a reliable tool for understanding and predicting fracture growth.

Modeling Versus Measuring

Fracture growth models

incomplete physical understanding

Direct diagnostics

not predictive

Calibrated models more realistically predict how fractures will physically grow for alternative designs

not predictive Calibrated models more realistically predict how fractures will physically grow for alternative designs

Microseismic Fracture Mapping Cotton Valley Sandstone

Fracture model prediction Calibrated fracture model matches microseismic mapping results
Fracture model prediction
Calibrated fracture model matches
microseismic mapping results

Bossier Sand

Calibrated Modeling Results for Well C

GR 0 150 FracproPT Layer Properties Concentration of Proppant in Fracture (lb/ft²) Width Prof Rockt
GR
0
150
FracproPT Layer Properties
Concentration of Proppant in Fracture (lb/ft²)
Width Prof
Rockt
Stress
Modul
Perme
Comp
100
200
300
400
500
600
0
0
1
0
200
12800
12800
Shale
Shale
12900
12900
Shale
Shale
13000
13000
Shale
Upper Y
13100
13100
13200
Lower Y
13200
13300
13300
Shale
Proppant Concentration (lb/ft²)
Shale
13400
13400
Shale
0
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.0
Shale
GR 0 150 FracproPT Layer Properties Concentration of Proppant in Fracture (lb/ft²) Width Prof 12700
GR
0
150
FracproPT Layer Properties
Concentration of Proppant in Fracture (lb/ft²)
Width Prof
12700
Rockt
Stress
Modul
Perme
Comp
100 200
300
400
500
600
0
0
1
0
200
Shale
12800
12800
Shale
Shale
12900
12900
Shale
Shale
13000
13000
Shale
Upper Y
13100
13100
13200
Lower Y
13200
13300
13300
Shale
Proppant Concentration
(lb/ft²)
Shale
13400
13400
Shale
0 0.20
0.40 0.60
0.80 1.0

Before model calibration

After model calibration

More confinement than can be attributed to stress contrast, permeability or modulus.

Composite layering Width decoupling

SPE 84489

Confined Fracture Height Growth

Hard to explain confinement with current “essential physics” if

Net fracturing pressures are higher than measured/estimated closure stress contrasts

No known “permeability barriers” exist

Is there another containment mechanism?

Increased fracture

Interface

Composite

closure stress

slippage

layering

another containment mechanism? Increased fracture Interface Composite closure stress slippage layering
another containment mechanism? Increased fracture Interface Composite closure stress slippage layering
another containment mechanism? Increased fracture Interface Composite closure stress slippage layering

FRACTURE

COMPLEXITY

HYDRAULIC FRACTURE MINEBACK

FRACTURE COMPLEXITY HYDRAULIC FRACTURE MINEBACK

Applying Microseismic Technology In Egypt

Can it be applied it Egypt?

Reservoirs Where Microseismic Mapping has Been Successfully Applied

Oil/Gas/Geothermal/Disposal

Lithologies

Granites (Geothermal)

Shales

Sandstone/Shale

Carbonates

Coal Bed Methane

Chalk

Unconsolidated Sands

How Far Can Microseismic See? Microseismic Observation Distance

Range from <100m to over >>1,500m

Observation Distance Depends on:

1. Size (Amplitude) of the Microseism

Formation Treatment size and rate

2. Attenuation

Formation property

3. Background noise

Quiet Wellbore Field Activities Same pad operations

How Far Can Microseismic See? Actual Observation Distances:

Granites (Geothermal)

>>1500m

Shales

900 - 750m

Sandstone/Shale

350 - 450m

Carbonates

300m

Coal Bed Methane

250m

Chalk

Unconsolidated Sands

<100m*

<100m*

* Long-term reservoir monitoring has seem significantly large observation distances

Conclusion

Microseismic Mapping Can Be Successfully Applied in Egypt

Same limitations as found in the North America

Must find suitably near observation wells

There is not a technology problem

Must mobilize specialized FBO equipment to Egypt

Need technology leader (early adopter) to decide to do this in Egypt

The Egyptian Western Desert Should Work Well

Typical Sand/Shale sequences

Reasonably large treatments

Not same pad operations (low noise levels)

Would anticipate observation distances of ~450m

Questions?

Future Advances

Microseismic Mapping From an Active Treatment Well

Currently only Available in North America

Treatment Well Currently only Available in North America Fiber optic wireline Mechanically Coupled geophones using

Fiber optic wireline

only Available in North America Fiber optic wireline Mechanically Coupled geophones using blocks Typically run 10
only Available in North America Fiber optic wireline Mechanically Coupled geophones using blocks Typically run 10

Mechanically Coupled geophones using blocks Typically run 10 tools with ~200’ aperture Only obtain usable data during SI time Tools run pulled under pressure

blocks Typically run 10 tools with ~200’ aperture Only obtain usable data during SI time Tools

Microseismic Mapping From A Horizontal Well

Currently only Available in North America

A Horizontal Well Currently only Available in North America Gravity Coupled geophones using blocks Typically run
A Horizontal Well Currently only Available in North America Gravity Coupled geophones using blocks Typically run
A Horizontal Well Currently only Available in North America Gravity Coupled geophones using blocks Typically run

Gravity Coupled geophones using blocks Typically run 5 tools with ~700’ aperture

Deployed on tractor Can also be done on treatment wells

geophones using blocks Typically run 5 tools with ~700’ aperture Deployed on tractor Can also be