SPE 102372

Understanding Hydraulic Fracture Growth in Tight Oil Reservoirs by Integrating

Microseismic Mapping and Fracture Modeling
X. Liu, SPE, Pinnacle Technologies, Z.Q. Zhou, X.W. Li, Z.X. Li, Y.G. Xu, and B.C. Chen, PetroChina Changqing Oilfield Co.

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE International Oil & Gas Conference
and Exhibition in China held in Beijing, China, 57 December 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
In this case study, fracture treatments in three tight-oil
reservoirs in the giant Ordos basin of northern China were
investigated using microseismic mapping and fracture
modeling techniques to understand hydraulic fracture growth
behavior and post-frac performance. Reservoirs of interests
consist of stacked fluvial sand/shale deposits, and the target
pay zones occur at depths between 1,820 and 2,186 meters.
All wells in these tight reservoirs require fracture stimulation
to improve productivity. This paper provides a brief summary
of reservoir characteristics, but focuses on microseismic
mapping results and fracture modeling analysis. This paper
demonstrates that integrated studies can help engineers
understand fracture behavior.
Introduction
This study involves three tight-oil reservoirs in the Ordos
basin, which is located in north central China (as shown in
Figure 1). The three reservoirs of interest are relatively close,
and are located in an area of 40 by 40 kilometers. The net pay
thickness for these reservoirs ranges from 8 to 15 meters. The
reservoir quality varied with effective permeability ranging
from 0.05 to 0.3 mD. The specific gravity of the crude oil is
about 0.85 or an API gravity of 35 degrees. All oil wells in
these tight reservoirs in the region require fracture stimulation
to achieve commercial production and to improve well
productivity. Fracture stimulation is also very common for
water injection wells to enhance injectivity. Figure 2
illustrates the surface environment in the Ordos basin.
Canyons and deserts cover a major portion of the basins
surface area. A number of directional wells are thus often
drilled from a single pad.

Figure 1 The Ordos basin location in China

Figure 2 A typical well site in the Ordos basin

Microseismic fracture mapping technology has existed for

over 20 years1. The formation around the fracture undergoes
significant stress increases and large changes in the local pore
pressure during a fracture treatment. Both of these changes
affect the stability of planes of weakness adjacent to the
hydraulic fracture and cause them to undergo shear slippage.
The shear slippages are similar to earthquakes along faults, but

SPE 102372

with much lower magnitude. The name microseism is thus

used to describe this phenomenon. These acoustic signals can
be detected using appropriate receivers and processed to
determine the locations of these microseismic events1.
Microseisms are detected with multiple receivers deployed on
a wireline array in one or more offset wellbores. With only a
single offset observation well, a multi-level vertical array of
receivers is used to locate the microseisms. After orienting
each receiver in the array (normally using the perforating
procedure in the treatment well to obtain the orientation of the
3-component sensors), microseisms created by the fracture
treatment are then detected, oriented and located within the
reservoir. An illustration of the concept of microseismic
fracture mapping with a 5-level receiver array is illustrated in
Figure 3, as described by Fisher et al. 2

Figure 3 Microseismic fracture mapping illustration

Over 1,000 fracture treatments have been mapped in North

America using microseismic mapping, though almost all of
these fracture jobs were performed in tight gas wells2-6.
However, the cases investigated in this paper involved
microseismic mapping in tight-oil reservoirs. In particular, this
paper is focused on microseismic mapping and fracture
modeling results for four fracture treatments in three tight-oil
reservoirs in the Ordos basin. These three reservoirs are
designated ZN, ZF and ZD, respectively.

Figure 4 Bottomhole well locations in Reservoir ZN

Well Z-0 was the first well drilled in this reservoir block.
After a fracture stimulation treatment, the well was put on
production for one month and then converted into an injection
well for injecting water into the CB-1 and CB-2 zones. Water
was continuously injected into the new reservoir for 18
months until two new production wells, Z-1 and Z-2, were
completed and fracture stimulated. Reservoir data, such as
payzone depth, porosity, and permeability that were
interpreted from logs, are presented in Tables 1 and 2 for
wells Z-1 and Z-2, respectively. Note that the log-interpreted
permeability is about 5 to 10 times higher than effective
permeability values. Well Z-1 has a net pay of 23.3 m and
well Z-2 has a net pay of 14.3 m. Perforation depths for these
three wells are provided in Table 3.
Table 1: Well Z-1 data in Reservoir ZN
Zone

CB-2

Porosity
(%)
13.6

Perm
(mD)
1.6

11.2

1.4

2147.4-2149.2

1.8

9.2

1.2

2149.8-2154.1

4.3

12.1

2.1

Table 2: Well Z-2 data in Reservoir ZN

Zone

Reservoir ZN
This case involves the development of a new reservoir block,
and the target pay zones are designated CB-1 and CB-2.
Figure 4 shows the bottom-hole locations for 19 wells that
were planned to be drilled: circles in the map represent oil
producers, and dots denote water injectors. Note that the map
only indicates the planned well locations, but does not
necessarily represent the actual bottom-hole locations. The
observation well, Z-0, showed in the map, is basically a
vertical well with a bottom horizontal displacement of 85
meters only. The downhole seismic system was placed in this
observation well to monitor fracture treatments for two
adjacent wells: Z-1 and Z-2. As shown in the well map, wells
Z-1 and Z-2 are located on each side of the observation well,
roughly at its east and west sides. Both the treatment wells are
directional wells that were drilled from two different well
pads. Well patterns provided in this map were originally
designed with previous knowledge of fracture orientation in
the direction of N65E.

Payzone Depth Thickness

MD (m)
MD (m)
7.9
2137.8-2145.7
0.3
2145.7-2146.0

CB-2

Payzone Depth Thickness

MD (m)
MD (m)
19.4
2158.4-2177.8
1.5
2177.8-2179.3

Porosity
(%)
13.6

Perm
(mD)
1.60

9.0

0.24

2184.1-2185.0

0.9

10.2

0.39

2185.0-2186.5

1.5

8.8

0.21

Table 3: Perforation depths for three wells in Reservoir ZN

Well
Z-0
Z-1
Z-2

Zone
CB-1
CB-2
CB-2
CB-2

Perf Interval
MD (m)
2083.0-2087.0
2126.0-2131.0
2139.0-2145.0
2161.0-2168.0

Mid-Perf
TVD (m)
2,076.3
2,119.8
2,119.9
2,121.9

Microseismic Mapping. Single-stage fracture treatments on

the Z-1 and Z-2 wells were monitored from the observation
well Z-0 using microseismic fracture mapping. For the cases
presented in this study, the state-of-art microseismic mapping
technique, using 12 levels of downhole geophones conveyed

SPE 102372

by a fiber-optic cable to the surface, was applied to understand

the fracture growth behavior.

400
350
300

Table 4: Summary of fracture mapping results in Reservoir ZN

Z-1
CB-2
2139.0-2145.0
206
81,000
3.4

200

South-North (meters)

150

Treatment
well Z-1

Tools

100

Treatment
well Z-2

50

Perfs

Obs Well Z-0

-50
-100

E
N75

-150
-200

N80E

Perfs

-250
-300
-350
-400

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

-350

-450

-400

-450
West-East (meters)

Figure 5 Plan view of microseisms from wells Z-1 & Z-2

1850
1875

Z-0
wellbore

1900

Z-1
wellbore

1925
1950
1975

Tools

Zone CB-1

2000
2025
2050

Obs. well GR

2075

Zone CB-2

2100
2125
2150
2175

Perfs

2200
2225

Looking N10W
150

100

50

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300

-350

-400

-450

-500

-550

-600

-650

2250
Distance Along Fracture (m)

Figure 6 Side view of microseisms from well Z-1

Z-2
CB-2
2161.0-2168.0
263
130,000
3.2

1850
1875

Z-2 wellbore

1900

Obs. well GR
A-0
wellbore

1925
1950
1975
2000

Zone CB-1

2025

Tools

2050
2075

Zone CB-2

2100
2125
2150

Perfs

2175
2200
2225

Looking N15W
400

350

300

Distance Along Fracture (m)

250

200

150

100

50

-50

-100

2250
-150

N75E
0
150
260

-200

N80E
420
215
135

TVD(m)

Treatment Well
Formation Name
Perf Interval (m)
3
Fluid Volume (m )
Proppant Total (kg)
3
Average Rate (m /min)
Mapping Results
Fracture Orientation
Length - SW Wing (m)
Length - NE Wing (m)
Total Height (m)

250

TVD (m)

Prior to the fracture monitoring and treatment operations, a

bridge plug was set at a depth (MD) of 2073 m in the
observation well, Z-0. A microseismic tool array of 12 levels
(tool string) was then placed in the observation well. The tool
string had an aperture (top geophone to bottom geophone) of
85.7 m, and the bottom of the tool string was located at a
depth (MD) of 2064.9 m in the observation well. The
bottomhole distance between Z-0 and Z-1 is 360 m, while it is
214 m between Z-0 and Z-2. Fracture mapping results for
these two fracture treatments are summarized in Table 4. As
these were relatively small fracture treatments and were
pumped at low rates, the number of microseismic events was
not large: 55 events detected from the Z-1 fracture treatment
and 99 events detected from the Z-2 fracture treatment. The
plan view of the microseismic mapping results is shown in
Figure 5, indicating a fracture azimuth of N80E for well Z-1
and an azimuth of N75E for well Z-2. The plan view also
revealed the following dimensions: a length of 420 m to the
southwest (SW) for well Z-1, and a length of 215 m to the
southwest and 150 m to the northeast (NE) for well Z-2. No
microseismic events from well Z-1 were detected in the
northeast direction, possibly because events were too far for
the tools to detect. Mapping results thus exhibited an
extremely asymmetrical fracture for well Z-1. The side view
of the microseismic mapping results for both treatments is
shown in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. The total mapped
height for well Z-1 was 135 m, with both upward and
downward growth, but the fracture did not grow above a shale
barrier at the top of the CB-1 zone. For well Z-2, the mapped
height was 260 m, indicating extreme upward and downward
growth, far above the shale barrier. Mapping results indicated
that another fracture might have been initiated at a depth
(TVD) of 1960 m in well Z-2. This could have been caused by
a poor cement job or possible faults that communicate
vertically across different formations in the reservoir.

Figure 7 Side view of microseisms from well Z-2

SPE 102372

Fracture Modeling. Diagnostic injections were pumped prior

to propped stages for both of the fracture treatments, to
measure closure stress, fracture entry friction, and fluid
efficiency. As shown in Figure 8, actual diagnostic testing for
well Z-1 consisted of two injections: 18.5 m3 of KCL water
and 42.3 m3 of gelled fluid. Rate step-down tests were
7
conducted prior to each shut-in stage . The rate step-down
testing results indicated high perforation friction of 12.0 MPa
and tortuosity of 4.2 MPa at a reference rate of 2.71 m3/min
8
for the gel injection. A G-function analysis was attempted to
determine fracture closure from the pressure decline data. The
analysis results from the water injection are shown in Figure
9, indicating a closure stress of 31.7 MPa (0.015 MPa/m).
Fracture closure occurred in 34.7 min after the shut-in, with a
slurry-efficiency of 60%. The fracture did not appear to close
during the pressure decline period after the gel injection.

indicated in this plot, the fracture was not closed during the
shut-in period after the gel injection. KCL water and gel
injections were also pumped prior to the propped stages for
the well Z-2 fracture treatment. Since the pressure decline was
very slow, fracture closure could not be determined from the
data. Data and analysis for the failed diagnostic injections
were omitted here. Since fracture closure could not be
determined for well Z-2, the same values given in Table 5
were used for the fracture analysis of the propped treatments
for both wells Z-1 and Z-2. This was a reasonable assumption
as both wells are close to each other and logs from both wells
are similar. Treatment volumes, rates, pressures and modeling
results for both propped treatments are summarized in Table
6. Note that the estimated reservoir permeabilities in Table 6
are significantly smaller than the log interpreted values in
Tables 1 and 2.
Table 5: Rock mechanical data used in Reservoir ZN

Surf Press [Tbg] (MPa)

Pressure Testing

50.00

Slurry Flow Rate (m/min)

5.000

Rock Type

Stress Gradient
(MPa/m)
0.0150

Youngs Modulus
(MPa)
1.5E+4

Poissons
Ratio
0.20

Mudstone

0.0170

1.5E+4

0.25

Shale

0.0185

1.5E+4

0.25

Gel Injection

Sandstone
Water Injection

40.00

4.000

30.00

3.000

20.00

2.000

10.00

1.000

Table 6: Propped fracture modeling results in Reservoir ZN

0.00

0.0

35.0

70.0

105.0

140.0

175.0

0.000

Time (min)

Figure 8 Diagnostic injection data for well Z-1

(Gd/dG) Surf Press [Tbg] (MPa)

Surf Press [Tbg] (MPa)

20.00

10.00

Fracture Closure

17.00

8.00

14.00

6.00

Well Name
Formation Name
Perf Interval (MD) (m)
3
Fluid Volume (m )
Proppant Total (kg)
3
Max Prop Conc (kg/m )
3
Average Rate (m /min)
Final Surface ISIP (MPa)
Modeling Results
Estimated Reservoir Perm (mD)
Hydraulic Frac Length (m)
Propped Frac Length (m)
Hydraulic Frac Height (m)
Propped Frac Height (m)

Slurry Flow Rate (m/min)

Observed Net (MPa)

5.000
10.00

Z-1
CB-2
2139-2145
206
81,000
950
3.4
19.5

Z-2
CB-2
2161-2168
263.0
130,000
950
3.2
16.5

0.2
101
83
71
58

0.1
94
86
54
50

Net Pressure (MPa)

Net Pressure Match

11.00

4.00

8.00

2.00

5.00

0.000

0.920

1.840

2.760

3.680

4.600

0.00

10.00

Net Pressure Match

4.000
8.00

8.00

3.000
6.00

6.00

2.000
4.00

4.00

1.000
2.00

2.00

G Function Time

Figure 9 G-function analysis of water injection data for well Z-1

Based on well log interpretations, three types of rocks were

identified, and their rock mechanical properties and stress
values are given in Table 5. The pressure decline data after
the two diagnostic injections for well Z-1 was modeled: the
net pressure matching results are shown in Figure 10. As

0.000
0.00

0.0

35.0

70.0

105.0

140.0

175.0

0.00

Time (min)

Figure 10Net pressure match of diagnostic injections for well Z-1

SPE 102372

The propped treatment for well Z-1 consisted of 206 m3 of

cross-linked fluid and 81,000 kg of 20/40-mesh proppant
(sand); the treatment data is shown in Figure 11. A good net
pressure match was obtained for the Z-1 propped treatment,
which is presented in Figure 12. As can be seen from the net
pressure plot, a moderate tip screenout was achieved for this
job. The predicted fracture geometry for well Z-1 is shown in
Figure 13. The modeling results indicated a fracture halflength of 100.8 m and a fracture height of 70.7 m. The
microseismic results from well Z-1 indicated the fracture grew
predominately around Zone CB-2, which were in agreement
with the modeling results. However, a few microseismic
events were detected in and above Zone CB-1.

Width Profile (cm)

2.5

Fracture Conductivity (mDm)

2.5

25

50

Layer Properties

75

100

Rocktype

Stress (MPa)
20
50

Shale
2050

2050

2075

2075

Mudstone

2100

2100

Mudstone
Sandstone

Perfs
2125

2125

Poor Sand
Mudstone
2150

2150

Shale

Fracture Conductivity (mDm)

2175

2175
0

Proppant Conc (kg/m)

Surf Press [Tbg] (MPa)

1500
50.00

Slurry Flow Rate (m/min)

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

10.00

Figure 13 Frac geometry predicted for the treatment of well Z-1

1200
40.00

8.00

900
30.00

6.00

600
20.00

4.00

300
10.00

2.00

0
0.00

30

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

0.00

Time (min)

Figure 11 Propped treatment data for well Z-1

Prop Conc (kg/m)

Net Pressure (MPa)

1500
15.00

Observed Net (MPa)

Slurry Rate (m/min)

15.00
10.00

Net Pressure Match

The propped treatment for well Z-2 was larger than Z-1 and
consisted of 263 m3 of cross-linked fluid and 130,000 kg of
20/40-mesh sand. Figure 14 shows the Z-2 propped treatment
data. As summarized in Table 6, the ISIP value was 16.5 MPa
for well Z-2, but it was 19.5 MPa for well Z-1. Both wells are
similar and very close to each other, but the treating pressures
are quite different, with well Z-2 having an ISIP value that
was 3.0 MPa lower than that for well Z-1. The significant
difference in ISIPs between the fracture treatments from the
two wells may indicate that there could be another fracture
growing into a shallow zone in well Z-2. The mapping results
for well Z-2 exhibited microseismic events in a shallower zone
at TVD depth of 1960 m, in addition to scattered microseismic
events around the perforation interval. The fracture modeling
analysis assumed a two-fracture scenario: a fracture for
Interval #1 initiated from the shallow zone at a depth (MD) of
1,980-1,985 m (or a center TVD depth of 1960 m); and a
fracture for Interval #2 initiated from the perforation interval
at the depth (MD) of 2,161.0-2,168.0 m (TVD of 2,118.82,124.9 m).

1200
12.00

12.00
8.00

900
9.00

9.00
6.00

1500
50.00

600
6.00

6.00
4.00

1200
40.00

8.00

300
3.00

3.00
2.00

900
30.00

6.00

600
20.00

4.00

300
10.00

2.00

0
0.00

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

0.00
100.0 0.00

Proppant Conc (kg/m)

Surf Press [Tbg] (MPa)

Slurry Flow Rate (m/min)

10.00

Time (min)

Figure 12 Net pressure match of the treatment for well Z-1

0
0.00

0.0

30.0

60.0

90.0

120.0

150.0

0.00

Time (min)

Figure 14 Propped treatment data for well Z-2

The net pressure analysis for the Z-2 propped treatment was
focused on the data at the shut-in point, as pressure decline
data was not available. In lack of net pressure data after shutin,

SPE 102372

the fracture model could not be calibrated by the mapping

results. During the pumping stages, complex wellbore and
fracture entry friction had complicated the net pressure
behavior and no analysis was attempted during these stages.
Because two fractures were assumed to grow from different
zones, the net pressure behavior for each fracture was
modeled. The net pressure behavior for both fractures is
shown in Figures 15 and 16, respectively. The predicted
fracture geometry for well Z-2 is shown in Figure 17. The
upper fracture grew in the range from 1911.4 m to 2003.7 m
of TVD depth, and the lower fracture grew in the range from
2088.9 m to 2142.7 m of TVD depth. Table 6 only
summarizes the modeling results for the real fracture
initiated from the perforation interval (Interval #2) in well Z-2.

Width Profile (cm)

2.5

Fracture Conductivity (mDm)

2.5

25

50

75

100

125

150

Layer Properties
Rocktype

175

Stress (MPa)
20

50

Shale

1900

1900

Shale
1950

1950
Mudstone

2000

2000

Shale

Possible
Wellbore Leak
2050

2050

2100

2100

Mudstone
Sandstone

Perfs

Shale

2150

2150

Fracture Conductivity (mDm)

Six additional wells were fracture stimulated in this reservoir

within one year after these two initial fracture treatments. In
eight fractured wells, there were five wells close to the water
injection well Z-0. Among these five wells, four wells
produced water at 6 - 7 m3/day, but only one with an initial
post-frac oil production of 20 m3/day. The other three wells
that were farther from well Z-0 yielded initial oil production
rates from 16 to 19 m3/day, which was as expected.
Btm Prop Conc (kg/m)
Net Pressure (MPa)

1500
20.00

Observed Net (MPa)

Btm Slry Rate (m/min)

20.00
10.00

Net Pressure Match at

the End of Pumping
1200
16.00

16.00
8.00

900
12.00

12.00
6.00

600
8.00

8.00
4.00

300
4.00

4.00
2.00

55

110

165

220

275

330

385

440

495

550

Figure 17 Frac geometry predicted for the well Z-2 treatment

Reservoir ZF
Reservoir ZF is relatively close to Reservoir ZN. Fracture
treatments for two wells from Reservoir ZF were mapped
using the microseismic technique. The two wells are about
200 meters apart, and fracture treatments for both of the wells
were conducted to target the same zone, designated as CL.
Since reservoir properties and treatment sizes were similar for
both of the wells, the fracture treatment from one of them was
studied in the paper. Payzone depth, porosity and permeability
for the well of interest are provided in Table 7. Note that
permeabilities in the table were based on log interpreted
values, but effective values could be significantly lower. The
last three zones (3, 4, and 5) in the table were interpreted as
the main pay, and a perforation interval of 2.5 m between the
depths from 1836.0 m to 1838.5 m was selected.
Table 7: Properties for the treatment well in Reservoir ZF

0
0.00

0.0

30.0

60.0

90.0

120.0

0.00
150.0 0.00

Time (min)

Figure 15 Interval-1 net pressure data for the well Z-2 treatment

Btm Prop Conc (kg/m)

Net Pressure (MPa)

1500
20.00

Observed Net (MPa)

Btm Slry Rate (m/min)

1200
16.00

16.00
8.00

900
12.00

12.00
6.00

600
8.00

8.00
4.00

300
4.00

4.00
2.00

0.0

30.0

60.0

90.0

120.0

Pay zone
MD (m)

Thickness
MD (m)

1820.6-1824.0

3.4

10.75

2.95

1824.0-1831.0

7.0

10.51

1.91

1831.0-1832.0

1.0

11.63

5.18

1832.0-1835.6

3.6

12.54

6.27

1835.6-1841.0

5.4

11.52

4.47

Porosity (%) Perm (mD)

20.00
10.00

Net Pressure Match at

the End of Pumping

0
0.00

Zone
No.

0.00
150.0 0.00

Time (min)

Figure 16 Interval-2 net pressure data for the well Z-2 treatment

Microseismic Mapping. For microseismic mapping, a nearby

observation well was selected to run the downhole geophone
system. Both the treatment and observation wells were
deviated, and the bottom-hole distance between the two wells
was 121 meters. The fracture treatment was performed with
210 m3 of clean fluid and 79 tons of proppant at the rate of 3.0
m3/min. The microseismic mapping results for the treatment
are provided in Table 8, and are shown in Figures 18 to 19,
respectively. Because the observation well was very close to
the treatment well, there were 184 microseismic events that
were able to be detected. The fracture azimuth for the
treatment was determined at N73E. This treatment showed
that the mapped fracture half-length ranged from 83 to 107 m.
The mapped fracture was asymmetric to some degrees because

SPE 102372

of tool location and/or reservoir heterogeneity. The mapped

fracture height was 69 m for the treatment, and the fracture
was basically contained within and around the pay.
Table 8: Mapping results for the treatment in Reservoir ZF
Perforation interval in the treatment well (m)
Geophone depth in the observation well (m)
3
Fluid volume (m )
Proppant total (kg)
3
Max prop conc. (kg/m )
3
Average rate (m /min)
Mapped Fracture Geometry
Half-Length - SW Wing (m)
Half-Length - NE Wing (m)
Fracture Height (m)
Fracture Azimuth

1836.0-1838.5
1680.0-1775.1
210
79
900
3.0
91
122
75
N73E

200

N73E
100

South-North (m)

Table 9: Treatment schedule for the well in Reservoir ZF

Stage
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

300

Treatment well

of proppant at a rate of 3.0 m3/min. The design minifrac was

supposed to consist of 12.5 m3 of KCL water, but 13 m3 of
gelled fluid was accidentally pumped. The minifrac data are
shown in Figure 20. Because of low fluid loss, the fracture
was not closed during the 70 minutes of pressure decline, and
the G-function analysis was not applicable. However, a stress
gradient of 0.014MPa/m for sand and 0.0155MPa/m for shale
were obtained by net pressure analysis, as summarized in
Table 10. Net pressure match for the minifrac is shown in
Figure 21. An effective pay zone permeability of 0.1 mD was
needed to match the net pressure decline data.

Observation well
-100

Stage
Time
Fluid
Type
(mm:ss)
Circulation
KCL water
Water Inj
5:00 KCL water
Shut in
65:00
Pad
69:00 XL Gel
Pad
74:00 XL Gel
Shut in
75:00
Pad
83:20 XL Gel
Slurry
100:55 XL Gel
Slurry
117:34 XL Gel
Slurry
133:07 XL Gel
Slurry
147:21 XL Gel
Slurry
157:59 XL Gel
Slurry
162:25 XL Gel
Flush
165:09 Slickwater

Vol
(m)
8.56
12.5
0.00
10.0
15.0
0.00
25.0
50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
25.0
10.0
8.20

Prop Conc Rate

(kg/m) (m/min)
2.50
0.00
2.50
3.00
0.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00

150
300
450
600
750
900
0

-200

Table 10: Rock mechanical data used for Reservoir ZF

200

100

-100

-200

-300

-400

-300
West-East (m)

Rock Type
Sandstone

Stress Gradient
(MPa/m)
0.0140

Youngs Modulus
(MPa)
1.5E+4

Poissons
Ratio
0.20

Shale

0.0155

1.5E+4

0.25

Figure 18 Plan view of microseisms in Reservoir ZF

Bottomhole Press (MPa)

Surf Press [Tbg] (MPa)

50.00
50.00

1700

Slurry Flow Rate (m/min)

10.00

40.00
40.00

8.00

30.00
30.00

6.00

20.00
20.00

4.00

10.00
10.00

2.00

Depth (m)

1800

1900

400

300

200

100

-100

-200

2000

Distance
Wellbore to
(m)
View)
Looking Along
NW, perpendicular
the(Side
fracture

Figure 19 Side view of microseisms in Reservoir ZF

Fracture Modeling. The treatment included both minifrac

and main propped stages. The design schedule for the
treatment is given in Table 9. A one-minute shut-in in Stage 5
was planned to check an ISIP value during the pad. The
propped treatment called for 260 m3 of clean fluid and 88 ton

0.00
0.00

0.00

15.00

30.00

45.00

60.00

75.00

0.00

Time (min)

Figure 20 Minifrac data for the treatment in Reservoir ZF

SPE 102372

Prop Conc (kg/m)

Net Pressure (MPa)

1.000
10.00

Observed Net (MPa)

Slurry Rate (m/min)

Slurry Flow Rate (m/min)

Surf Press [Tbg] (MPa)

Proppant Conc (kg/m)

Bottomhole Press (MPa)

10.00
10.00

10.00
50.00

0.800
8.00

8.00
8.00

8.00
40.00

1440
32.00

0.600
6.00

6.00
6.00

6.00
30.00

1080
24.00

0.400
4.00

4.00
4.00

4.00
20.00

720
16.00

0.200
2.00

2.00
2.00

2.00
10.00

360
8.00

0.00
75.00 0.00

0.00
0.00

0.000
0.00

0.00

15.00

30.00

45.00

60.00

0.0

20.0

Time (min)

40.0

60.0

80.0

1800
40.00

0
100.0 0.00

Time (min)

Figure 21 Net pressure match of minifrac data in Reservoir ZF

The propped fracture treatment was actually pumped with 210

m3 of clean fluid and 79 tons of proppant at the design rate of
3.0 m3/min. The treatment data are shown in Figure 22. Net
pressure analysis was performed for the propped treatment,
and the net pressure match was focused on pressure decline
data after shut-in, as shown in Figure 23. Modeling indicated
the modeled net pressure did not increase, while the measured
net pressure did increase substantially during the propped
stages. However, the measured net pressure declined quickly
in the first 4 minutes after shut-in, which indicated that the
measured net pressure increase was caused by mid-field
fracture tortuosity and was difficult to reflect it with modeling.
The fracture modeling results are summarized in Table 11.
A fracture model was also calibrated during the fracture
modeling analysis. The model calibration process has to meet
the following conditions: 1) match observed net fracture
pressures; 2) approximately match actual mapped fracture
dimensions; and 3) honor known rock properties. The fracture
geometry predicted by the modeling analysis is plotted
together with microseismic data, as shown in Figure 24. The
modeling results yielded a hydraulic fracture half-length of 94
m and a hydraulic fracture height of 60 m, which were quite
consistent to the mapping results (see Table 8).

Figure 22 Propped treatment data for the well in Reservoir ZF

Prop Conc (kg/m)

Net Pressure (MPa)

1500
10.00

Observed Net (MPa)

Slurry Rate (m/min)

10.00
10.00

Mid-field Tortuosity
1200
8.00

8.00
8.00

900
6.00

6.00
6.00

600
4.00

4.00
4.00

300
2.00

2.00
2.00

Net Pressure Match

0
0.00

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

0.00
100.0 0.00

Time (min)

Figure 23 Net pressure match for the treatment in Reservoir ZF

Table 11: Fracture modeling results for the well in Reservoir ZF

Perf Interval (MD) (m)
3
Fluid Volume (m )
Proppant Total (kg)
3
Max Prop Conc (kg/m )
3
Average Rate (m /min)
Final Surface ISIP (MPa)
Estimated Reservoir Perm (mD)
Hydraulic Frac Length (m)
Propped Frac Length (m)
Hydraulic Frac Height (m)
Propped Frac Height (m)

1836.0-1838.5
210.0
79,000
900
3.0
13.2
0.1
96
77
68
56

Figure 24 Modeled fracture geometry and microseismic events

for the treatment in Reservoir ZF

With the calibrated fracture model, production forecasting was

carried out. The post-frac production prediction was based on
a bottom hole flowing pressure of 1.6 MPa, which was
calculated from the annulus fluid depth of 1640 m during the

SPE 102372

initial production testing. As shown in Figure 25, the initial

production was predicted at 17 m3 of liquid per day, which
was consistent to the actual testing results: 11 m3 of oil per
day and 6.2 m3 of water per day. However, the production
declined quickly after the stimulation.
HC Rate (m/day)

20.00

Cum HC Prod (m)

2000

16.00

1600

12.00

1200

8.00

800

4.00

400

0.00

0.0

40.0

80.0

120.0

160.0

200.0

28, respectively. The fracture azimuth for the treatment was

determined at N73E. The results showed that the mapped
fracture half-length was 167 m for the southwestern wing and
134 m for northeastern wing. A total of 174 microseismic
events were detected from both of the fracture wings, but the
mapped fracture was slightly asymmetric. The mapped
fracture height was 55 m for the treatment. The fracture was
basically contained in and around the pay zone, CB.
Table 13: Mapping results for the treatment in Reservoir ZD
Perforation interval in the treatment well (m)
Geophone depth in the observation well (m)
3
Fluid volume (m )
Proppant total (kg)
3
Max prop conc (kg/m )
3
Average rate (m /min)
Mapped Fracture Geometry
Half-Length - SW Wing (m)
Half-Length - NE Wing (m)
Fracture Height (m)
Fracture Azimuth

2062.0-2067.0
1915.0-2010.1
126
43
550
2.4
167
134
65
N73E

Time (days)

Figure 25 Production forecasting for the well in Reservoir ZF

Reservoir ZD
Reservoir ZD is only 38 kilometers away from Reservoir ZF.
Fracture treatments for two wells from Reservoir ZD were
also mapped using the microseismic technique. Again, the
fracture treatment from one well was studied in the paper.
Payzone depth, porosity and permeability for the well of
interest are provided in Table 12. Note that permeabilities in
the table were based on log interpreted values, but effective
permeabilities could be significantly lower. A perforation
interval of 5.0 m at the depths from 2062.0 m to 2067.0 m was
selected. A small-size treatment, with 126 m3 of fluids and 43
ton of proppant, was performed at an average rate of 2.4
m3/min.
Table 12: Properties for the treatment well in Reservoir ZD
Zone
CB

Pay zone
MD (m)

Thickness
MD (m)

Porosity (%)

Perm
(mD)

Figure 26 A typical data set of p- and s-wave arrival times from

the treatment in Reservoir ZD

2059.5-2072.9

13.4

9.43

0.75

200

2073.8-2081.1

7.3

9.24

0.59

100

2081.9-2087.9

6.0

8.94

0.98

Observation welll

Treatment well

South-North (m)

-100

-200

N73E
-300

-400

-500

100

-100

West-East (m)

-200

-300

-400

-500

-600

-600
-700

Microseismic Mapping. A microseismic tool array of 12

levels was placed in a nearby observation well. Both the
treatment and observation wells were deviated, and the
bottom-hole distance between the two wells was 255 meters.
The mapping results for the treatment are summarized in
Table 13. Every microseism created during a fracture
treatment emits both compressional (P) and shear (S) waves
due to rock shear slippage effects. Figure 26 shows a data set
of p- and s-wave arrival times for a typical microseismic event
from the treatment. Prior to processing microseismic data, an
acoustic velocity model was first derived from well log data
and then calibrated by perforation shots. The microseismic
mapping results for the treatment are shown in Figures 27 and

Figure 27 Plan view of microseisms in Reservoir ZD

10

SPE 102372

Rate (m/min)
Tubing Pressure (MPa)

1800

10.00
40.00

Prop Conc (kg/m)

Bottomhole Pressure (MPa)

1000
40.00

8.00
32.00

800
32.00

6.00
24.00

600
24.00

4.00
16.00

400
16.00

2.00
8.00

200
8.00

Depth (m)

1900

Payzone: CB

2000

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

2100
Distance
Wellboreto(m)
View)
Looking Along
NW, perpendicular
the(Side
wellbore

0.00
0.00

350.0

370.0

390.0

410.0

430.0

450.0

0
0.00

Time (min)

Figure 28 Side view of microseisms in Reservoir ZD

Fracture Modeling. Diagnostic injections were pumped prior

to the propped treatment, but the diagnostic injection data
were not applicable for closure stress analysis. The propped
treatment data are shown in Figure 29. Fracture modeling
input data and results are summarized in Tables 14 and 15,
respectively. Net pressure match is presented in Figure 30.
Modeling indicated a moderate modeled net pressure increase
of 2.0 MPa during the propped stages, but the measured data
showed a net pressure increase of 4.0 MPa. The measured net
pressure decreased very quickly in the first 2.5 minutes after
shut-in; and the modeled net pressures then matched the
measured data after that point. Mid-field fracture tortuosity led
to the measured net pressure increase during propped stage,
and the quick pressure decline in a few minutes after shut-in
resulted from the pressure equilibrium between the nearwellbore and mid-field regions. The fracture geometry
predicted by modeling is plotted together with the
microseismic mapping results, as shown in Figure 31. The
modeled fracture height was similar to the mapped fracture
height, but the modeled fracture length was shorter than the
mapped fracture length on the southwestern wing. This well
yielded only a very modest post-treatment production.

Figure 29 Propped treatment data for the well in Reservoir ZD

Prop Conc (kg/m)

Net Pressure (MPa)

1000
10.00

Observed Net (MPa)

Slurry Rate (m/min)

Net Pressure Match

10.00
10.00

Net Pressure Match

800
8.00

8.00
8.00

600
6.00

6.00
6.00

Mid-field Tortuosity
400
4.00

4.00
4.00

200
2.00

2.00
2.00

0
0.00

350.0

370.0

390.0

410.0

430.0

0.00
450.0 0.00

Time (min)

Figure 30 Net pressure match for the treatment in Reservoir ZD

Table 14: Rock mechanical data used for Reservoir ZD

Rock Type
Sandstone
Shale

Stress Gradient Youngs Modulus Poissons

(MPa/m)
(MPa)
Ratio
0.0135
0.20
1.5E+4
0.0165
0.25
1.5E+4

Table 15: Fracture modeling results for the well in Reservoir ZD

Perf Interval (MD) (m)
3
Fluid Volume (m )
Proppant Total (kg)
3
Max Prop Conc (kg/m )
3
Average Rate (m /min)
Final Surface ISIP (MPa)
Estimated Reservoir Perm (mD)
Hydraulic Frac Length (m)
Propped Frac Length (m)
Hydraulic Frac Height (m)
Propped Frac Height (m)

1836.0-1838.5
126
43,000
550
2.4
15.5
0.1
117
106
61
56

Figure 31 Modeled fracture geometry and microseismic events

for the treatment in Reservoir ZD

SPE 102372

Conclusions
Fracture azimuth determined by microseismic
mapping was very consistent among the four fracture
treatments: N80E and N75E for two fracture
treatments in Reservoir ZN, and N73E for fracture
treatments in both Reservoir ZF and Reservoir ZD.
Accurate knowledge of fracture orientation will help
determine infill drilling locations.
Mapping results indicated excessive fracture height
growth, both upward and downward, for the two
treatments in Reservoir ZN.
In Reservoir ZN, wells Z-1 and Z-2 were very close
to each other, exhibited similar layer properties and
were fracture stimulated in the same pay zone.
However, the ISIP value for well Z-2 was 3.0 MPa
lower than that for well Z-1. Both treating pressure
data and microseismic mapping results indicated
another fracture growing into a shallow zone in well
Z-2, possibly due to poor wellbore isolation.
Both microseismic mapping and fracture modeling
results confirmed long, confined fractures for
treatments in Reservoir ZF and Reservoir ZD.
A calibrated fracture model provided a valuable tool
for post-treatment production forecasting and for
future fracture design and optimization.
Nomenclature
FcD
= dimensionless fracture conductivity
ISIP
= instantaneous shut-in pressure
MD
= measured depth
TVD
= true vertical depth
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank PetroChinas Changqing
Oilfield Co. for permission to publish this work. Thanks also
go to Shengli Geophysical Co. for recording the microseismic
data, to John Alcott and Qicheng Dong with Pinnacle
Technologies for processing the microseismic data.
References
1. Albright, J.N. and Pearson, C.F., Acoustic Emissions as a Tool
for Hydraulic Fracture Location: Experience at the Fenton Hill
Hot Dy Rock Sites, SPEJ (August 1982) 523.
2. Fisher, M.K., Wright, C.A., Davidson, B.M., Goodwin, A.K.,
Fielder, E.O., Buckler, W.S., Steinsberger, N.P.: Integrating
Fracture Mapping Technologies to Optimize Stimulations in the
Barnett Shale, paper SPE 77441 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio,
Texas, 29 September 2 October, 2002.
3. Warpinski, N.R., Branagan, P.T., Peterson, R.E., Wolhart, S.L.
and Uhl, J.E., Mapping Hydraulic Fracture Growth and
Geometry Using Microseismic Events Detected by a Wireline
Retrievable Accelerometer Array, SPE 40014, 1998 Gas
Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 1518.
4. M. Mayerhofer, S. Demetrius, L. Griffin, R. B. Bezant, J. Nevans,
L. Doublet, Tiltmeter Hydraulic Fracture Mapping in the North
Robertson Field, West Texas, SPE 59715, 2000 SPE Permian
Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, TX, Mar 2123.
5. Warpinski, N.R, Wolhart, S.L. and Wright, C.A., "Analysis and
Prediction of Microseismicity Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing,"

11

SPE 71649, 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and

Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, Sept 30-Oct 3.
6. Griffin, L.G., Sullivan, R., Wolhart, S., Waltman, C., Wright,
C.A., Weijers, L., and Warpinski, N.R., Hydraulic Fracture
Mapping of the High-Temperature, High-Pressure Bossier Sands
in East Texas, SPE 84489, SPE Annual Technical Conference
& Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, October 5 8, 2003.
7. Wright, C. A.: On-Site Step-Down Test Analysis Diagnoses
Problems and Improves Fracture Treatment Success, Harts
Petroleum Engineer International (January 1977).
8. Barree R.D.: Application of Pre-Frac Injection/Falloff Tests in
fissured Reservoirs-Field Examples, paper SPE 39932
presented at the Rocky Mountain Regional/Low-Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, April
1998.