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 fractures Perfectly confined frac Horizontal fractures

Twisting 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
GR 20 NEU T 20 0 0.5 Rock type 0 9 200 Sa n d nd Sa n d Sa n d Sa n d nd (Str ess (psi 50 00 7000 (M odulus (psi ...Pore Pe rmea 0 0. 5 9200 (Concent ration of Proppant in Fractu re(lb/ft (Width P rofile (in

92 00

920 0

nd 9 300 S a n d Sa n d nd Sa n d nd 9 400 Sa n d nd Sa n d Sa n d

9300

93 00

930 0

9400

94 00

940 0

Fracture model prediction

9 500 S ha le S e Sa n d 2 d 2 9 600

9500

95 00

950 0

9600

96 00

960 0

d 2 9 700S a n d 2

9700

97 00

970 0

9 800

9800
(P ro p p an t C o n cen tratio n (lb /ft

98 00

980 0

Calibr ated fr actur e model matches micr oseismic mapping r esults

S ha le Sh a l e

9 900

Sa n d Sa n d

9900

0 .1 5 0 .3 0 0 .4 5 0 .6 0 0 .7 5 0 .9 0

1 .1

1. 2

1 .4

1 .5

99 00 0.5 0 0. 5

990 0

100

200

300

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

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
Slippage Emits Both P & S Waves (Compressional & Shear) Velocities Are Different P Wave > S Wave Detected At Tri-Axial Receiver

SHEAR SLIPPAGE

P S Y X RECEIVER

S(t1) P(t1) S(t2) P(t2)

Microseismic Mapping
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
P

SHEAR SLIPPAGE

S(t1) P(t1) S X RECEIVER S(t2) P(t2)

Microseismic Mapping
Example Recorded MS Event

Microseismic Mapping
Velocity Model

Receivers

V1 V2
Microseismic Event

V3
Ray Paths

V4

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
Y Amplitude

Example Hodogram Waveform

Amplitude

x y

Angle from x Axis

X Amplitude

Time

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

Appling Microseismic Mapping

Determining Fracture Growth

East Texas Examples

Bossier and Cotton Valley

Microseismic Mapping Results Taylor Sands

9800 10000
1 200 1 000 8 00 6 00 4 00 2 00 0 -2 00 -4 00 -6 00 -8 00 -10 00 -12 00 -14 00 -8 00 -6 00 -4 00 -2 00 0 2 00 4 00 6 00 -18 00 -16 00 -14 00 -12 00 -10 00 8 00

Well B

Well A

Observation Well B

10200

10400 10600

Events related to casing deformation

Dep th (ft)

10800

11000
C-Lime Mar ker L1 L2 L3 Bossier Shale

Well A N71E 1500 Xf

11200 11400

11600

11800

12000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 -1600 -1400 -1200 -1000 600

D istance (ft)

APC Anderson #2
York Frac Map View
600 500

DE-PS26-01NT41121 SPE 89876

400

300 200

Anderson #2 550 ft* 275 ft*

100

South-North (ft)

-100

-200

Azimuth = N91oE Anderson #1

-300 -400

-500

-600 -700 -700

* wing lengths from York-only events

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

West-East (ft)

SPE 84876

APC Anderson #2
York Frac Side View
12500

12600

12700

12800

Communicating fault between the York and Bonner

12900

Depth (ft)

13000

Bonner York

13100

13200

13300

13400

Non-communicating fault, attenuation noted in MS signals

DE-PS26-01NT41121 SPE 89876

13500 -700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

100

200

300

Distance Along Fracture (ft)

SPE 84876

APC Anderson #2 Map View

York and Bonner Fracs
600 500 400 300

DE-PS26-01NT41121 SPE 89876

York Azimuth = N91oE

200 100

Bonner Azimuth = N87oE

South-North (ft)

-100 -200 -300

Anderson #2 Anderson #1

-400 -500

York Frac Blue Events

-600 -700 -700

Bonner Frac Red Events

-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

West-East (ft)

SPE 84876

APC Anderson #2 Side View

York and Bonner Fracs
12200

York Frac Blue Events

12300 12400 12500 12600 12700

Bonner Frac Red Events

DE-PS26-01NT41121 SPE 89876

BM Moore Communicating fault from the Bonner to the Moore and BM Bonner

Depth (ft)

12800 12900 13000 13100

13200 13300

York Communicating fault between York and Bonner Non-communicating fault in the York, attenuation noted in MS signals
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

13400 13500 -700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

Distance Along Fracture (ft)

SPE 84876

Plan View Well B Stimulation

1100 1000 900 800 700 600 South - North (ft) 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400 -600 -200 100 -1000 -900 -800 -700 -500 -400 -300 -100 0 West - East (ft)
9:0 5-10:08a m 10:08-11:05 am 11:05-12:13 pm
10.0 100

Azimuth=N81E Well B 750

Xf = 615 West and 750 East

615 Late events after net pressure drop

Prop Conc (ppg) Net Pressure (psi) Observed Net (psi) Slurry Rate (bpm)

Observation Well 8.0

80 6.0 60 4.0 40

200

300

400

2.0 20 0.0

SPE 84489

0.0

500
40.0

80.0

120.0

160.0

200

Time (min)

Side/Edge View Well B

1170 0 1180 0 1190 0 1200 0 1210 0 1220 0 1230 0 MD (ft) 1240 0 1250 0 1260 0 1270 0 1280 0 1290 0 1300 0 1310 0 1320 0 1330 0 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 700 100 200 300 400 500 600
6.0 60 4.0 40 2.0 20 0.0 0.0 40.0 80.0 120.0 160.0 200
11700
9:0 5-10:08 am 10 :08-11:0 5am 11 :05-12:1 3pm

11800 11900 12000 12100 12200

GR 450

pe rfs

Cotton Valley

615

12300

750

MD (ft)

12400 12500 12600 12700 12800 12900

B.M . Moore

Bonner
Observed Net (psi) York Slurry Rate (bpm)

Late events af ter 10.0 100 net p ressure drop

8.0 80

Prop Conc (ppg) Net Pressure (psi) 13000

13100 13200 13300 -300 -200 -100 0 100

200

Distance Along F racture (ft)

800

Distance Across Fractu re (ft)

8 perf clusters in the BM/Moore York Xf = 615 West and 750 East H = 450 Note events in Shales Minor stimulation of the York

SPE 84489

Time (min)

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

Microseismic Fracture Mapping Cotton Valley Sandstone

Fracture model prediction

Calibrated fracture model matches microseismic mapping results

Bossier Sand
Calibrated Modeling Results for Well C
GR 0 150 Rockt... 12800 Shale Shale 12900 Shale Shale 13000 Shale Upper Y... 13100 13100 13000 12900

FracproPT Layer Properties

Stress... Modul... Perme... 0 1 Comp... 0 200

Concentration of Proppant in Fracture (lb/ft)

100 200 300 400 500 600

Width Prof...
0 12800

Before model calibration

13200

Lower Y...

13200

13300

Shale Shale

13300 Proppant Concentration (lb/ft) 13400 0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.0

13400

Shale Shale

GR 0 12700

150 Rockt... Shale

FracproPT Layer Properties

Stress... Modul... Perme... 0 1 Comp... 0 200

Concentration of Proppant in Fracture (lb/ft)

100 200 300 400 500 600

Width Prof...
0 12800

After model calibration

More confinement than can be attributed to stress contrast, permeability or modulus.
Composite layering Width decoupling

12800

Shale Shale

12900

Shale Shale

12900

13000

Shale Upper Y...

13000

13100

13100

13200

Lower Y...

13200

13300

Shale Shale

Proppant Concentration (lb/ft)

13300

13400

Shale

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.0

13400

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 closure stress

Interface slippage

Composite layering

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) Shales Sandstone/Shale Carbonates Coal Bed Methane Chalk Unconsolidated Sands >>1500m 900 - 750m 350 - 450m 300m 250m <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

Fiber optic wireline

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

Microseismic Mapping From A Horizontal Well

Currently only Available in North America

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

Deployed on tractor Can also be done on treatment wells