SPE 77442
A Practical Guide to Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostic Technologies
R.D.Barree, SPE, Barree and Associates, M.K. Fisher, SPE, Pinnacle Technologies,
R.A. Woodroof, SPE, ProTechnics a Core Laboratories Company
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29 September–2 October 2002.
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
Hydraulic fracturing is key to the economic success of many
oil and gas fields around the world and has improved
production in low permeability reservoirs for more than 50
years. Successful stimulations are engineered to place the
proper type and volume of slurry based on estimating the
dimensions of the optimal fracture to be created in a specific
wellbore. Several commonly used technologies are available
which determine important fracture parameters such as
fracture dimensions, fracture orientation, fracture conductivity
and proppant placement effectiveness. Fracture models are
today’s most widely used tool to predict the optimal frac
geometry based on conditional inputs such as closure stress,
pore pressure, permeability, fluid saturation and numerous
other mechanical and petrophysical properties of the reservoir.
In many cases, these parameters are based on assumptions
rather than hard data, and incorrect assumptions then lead to
sub-optimal stimulation results.
Direct near-wellbore diagnostics such as radioactive
tracers and temperature logging are often used to gather
information about fracture height and proppant placement
effectiveness, while direct far-field diagnostics such as
tiltmapping and microseismic fracture mapping are used to
determine hydraulic fracture dimensions and orientation.
Direct fracture diagnostics alone only tell the story of what
happened after the fact on a given well, but they can also be
used to build a calibrated fracture model which accurately
predicts fracture growth in a reservoir. Depending upon the
critical information needed for specific fracture stimulation,
one or more diagnostic tools may be applied. These
diagnostic tools will be discussed and compared in order to
provide a reference of widely used diagnostic tools with
strengths and limitations discussed along with examples of
each in use in fracture optimization.
Fracture Complexity
For many years, fractures were assumed to be bi-wing, single
planar features (mostly for easier numerical modeling) that
would stay primarily within the pay zone and grow very long
(Why would they want to grow anyplace else?). More than 10
years of direct fracture diagnostics and over 6000 mapped
fractures have proven those assumptions to be mostly
incorrect. Fractures in the real world are very complex.
Numerous cases have been documented in the literature with
direct fracture diagnostics, mine-backs and core-throughs
where fractures are seen in multiple parallel planes, in
multiple directions, and in “T-shaped” fashion with both
horizontal and vertical components. Existing literature is rife
with cases of incomplete coverage of pay zones where
fractures may miss entire perforated intervals, only partially
cover some intervals, grow primarily out of zone in others,
deviate significantly from the wellbore causing connection or
link-up problems, and grow into unwanted water or gas
intervals nearby.
Fracture mapping can be used in real-time to evaluate
whether the entire pay is being sufficiently stimulated,
whether the design calls for enough or too many stages,
whether the optimal fracture length has been achieved and
whether adjustments need to be made to the existing
treatment design.
Diagnostics Groups
Fracture Diagnostics can be broken into 2 main groups (see
Figure 1): Indirect and Direct Diagnostics. Indirect techniques
include fracture modeling, well testing and production data
analysis, while Direct measurements are further subdivided
into Near-Wellbore (such as radioactive tracers, temperature,
and production logs) and Far-Field (tiltmeter and microseismic
mapping).
2 R.D. BARREE, M.K. FISHER, R.A. WOODROOF
Fig. 1-Above shows the range of available diagnostic tools with
measurement certainty and limitations for each.
The near and far-field technologies provide distinctly
different viewpoints of a fracture – near-wellbore is an
intricate, well-log scale view of a fracture with depths of
investigation on the order of a few feet and provides a fairly
detailed look at fracture contact area within the perforated
interval, proppant concentrations and height at the wellbore, or
a profile of production entry into the wellbore 1.
Far-field technologies such as tiltmeter and microseismic
mapping have a depth of investigation of many tens to
hundreds of feet and provide large-scale macroscopic views of
gross fracture dimensions, but do not have the well-log scale
detail of the near-field tools. In many cases both near and far-
field technologies are combined to get the best possible picture
of fracture growth, and these data are then used to calibrate a
fracture simulator in order to create an accurate model of how
fracture growth occurs under actual reservoir conditions. This
calibrated model is then used in predicting how different fluid
systems, rate changes, varying proppant concentrations and
volumes, etc. would change the created fracture geometry and
NPV for this and future treatments.
Indirect Fracture Diagnostics
Frac Modeling. Numerical modeling of fracture propagation
is more of a hopeful prediction than an actual treatment
diagnostic. Models are based on simplifying assumptions that
make the numerical solution of the complex problem of fluid
flow, solid transport, and geometry evolution tractable and
practical for routine use of the models. Input to the models
consists of vertical and (in some cases) lateral stress, pore
pressure, and rock elastic property distributions. These data
are constrained by wellbore pressure measurements and
various open-hole and cased-hole logs. Even with accurate
input data, the models are further limited by their assumptions
of linear-elastic fracture mechanics and homogeneous,
coupled rock deformation. Simulators that allow deviation
from these “homogenizing” assumptions can model more
discontinuous fracture geometries but require data to describe
the more discontinuous rock medium. Data to describe in-situ
rock discontinuities are frequently not available.
SPE 77442
When used as diagnostic tools, the models are “calibrated”
by changing their input data to match some observed job
parameter, usually after the treatment but sometimes in real-
time. Unfortunately the parameter that is commonly used as a
match-point is the observed treating pressure. The observed
pressure is often a surface treating pressure that is removed
from the actual fluid pressure inside the fracture by near-well
and perforation friction, pipe friction, hydrostatic head, and
fracture friction. All of these dynamic inputs to pressure
change continuously during the job and may not be
accurately predictable.
Even if an accurate bottomhole treating pressure is
available, sensitivity analysis shows that the treating pressure
is very weakly coupled to the fracture geometry, which is the
ultimate predictive goal of the models. For example, in an
assumed Perkins-Kern geometry (well-contained vertical
fracture) the observed net pressure is a function of created
fracture length to the 1/4th power. When this insensitivity is
combined with the unknowns of changing frictional dynamics,
it is difficult to determine the actual created fracture length
from pressure matching. In general the use of fracture models
as diagnostic tools leads to non-unique solutions and
inadequate results. In fact, treating pressure is more often
affected by proppant transport and fluid rheology in the near-
well area than by far-field fracture geometry. However,
fracture geometry models, in conjunction with other direct
diagnostic tools, can be effectively calibrated in an operating
area so that they can be used to accurately predict created
fracture geometry and be used as effective treatment
design tools.
Production Analysis. Post-frac analysis of well production,
either through use of a numerical reservoir simulator or with
type-curve models, is another indirect fracture geometry
diagnostic tool that has been applied. The difficulty with this
technique, when taken alone, is that the apparent fracture
length responds only to the ultimately cleaned-up and
“effective” fracture length, not the actual created or even
propped length. Also, production analysis does not provide
detailed information about fracture height growth or
containment. In almost all cases the effective producing
fracture length will be less (often much less) than the created
or propped length. This discrepancy has been at the root of
many mistaken assumptions of fracture geometry that have
been used to incorrectly constrain or calibrate models in
the past.
If a fracture design was expected to create a half-length of
500 feet with adequate proppant concentration, but the post-
frac production or buildup analysis indicated an effective
length of 100 feet, the blame has previously been placed on
the created fracture length, overall geometry and height
containment. This train of thought led to models that predict
massive height growth, large fracture widths, and short created
lengths in an effort to force-fit the model geometry to the
apparent effective length. This result, which has colored
fracture geometry modeling and interpretation for years, is a
perfect example of misinterpretation of data resulting from the
SPE 77442 A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO HYDRAULIC FRACTURE DIAGNOSTIC TECHNOLOGIES 3

application of two indirect measurements with direct

diagnostic measurement as a constraint. In other words, two
wrongs do not make a right (again).
With more direct measurement of fracture length and
containment, a different picture is emerging. It now appears
that many fractures are much better contained (in height) and
can be extensive in their created length. This indicates that the
difference between the effective producing length and the
created length is not primarily a geometry issue, but an
effective proppant-pack conductivity issue. The new
interpretation suggests that some of the frac fluids and breaker
systems commonly being used do not clean-up as effectively
as previously believed. This observation has already led to the
development of a new generation of cleaner frac fluid systems.
Of course extreme fracture complexity, such as true dendritic
fracture patterns in some reservoirs, also contributes to short Fig. 2-Production history match of post-frac well performance
indicates effective Xf=28 ft. The dashed curve shows the
effective frac lengths in some cases. These instances can expected production for Xf=300 ft.
easily be detected with direct diagnostics but may be
completely misinterpreted through production analysis.

Well Testing. Well testing can assist in defining fracture

geometry only in the same way that production analysis can.
Dimensionless Pressure
In fact there may be other limitations to conventional pressure
buildup analysis that yield different results than those obtained
from dynamic production analysis. Well transient testing
involves interpretation of the transmission of a pressure
transient through the reservoir and near-well (fracture)
environment. If the well test is a pressure build-up analysis,
the transient is caused by the shut-in at the well. Some field
evidence suggests that this shut-in transient behaves
differently than the pressure transient established by
drawdown at high rate. An example of this is shown in Figures Dimensionless Time

2 and 3, showing post-frac production and a subsequent
buildup analysis on the same well. The production plot shows
a detailed match of the post-frac production using a fully
three-dimensional reservoir simulator. The far-field reservoir
effective permeability is 0.27 md and the apparent effective
half-length of the created fracture is 28 feet. The dashed line,
shown for comparison, is the predicted well rate for a 300 foot
effective fracture length. All fracture lengths are based on an
assumed infinite conductivity.
The log-log type curve in Figure 3 shows the results of a
buildup test conducted at the end of the reservoir flow period.
The buildup confirmed the same reservoir permeability,
thickness, and initial pressure as the production analysis
match, but the effective fracture half-length calculated from
the buildup test was 350 feet, with an infinite conductivity.
This discrepancy may be caused by high-rate non-darcy flow
effects that exist during production but dissipate during the
shut-in. Theoretical estimates of the effect of non-darcy flow
indicate that changes in apparent fracture length of this
magnitude are possible if non-darcy pressure losses
are ignored.
Fig. 3-Pressure buildup analysis of the fractured well (from Figure
2) showing Xf=355 ft. Far-field reservoir properties (kh, etc.) are
the same for both the buildup and production history match
analyses.
This example further points out the difficulty in using
indirect diagnostic tools to evaluate fracture treatment
effectiveness. All the indirect measurements respond to
primary variables in the system that actually control the
response of the measured parameter to the system dynamics. If
these variables are not considered in the overall analysis, the
interpretation of the measurements can be wrong even if the
measurements themselves are correct.
Direct Near-Wellbore Fracture Diagnostics
Radioactive Tracing. Historically radioactive tracing and
spectral gamma ray logging have been employed to determine
the extent of vertical fracture height growth associated with a
propped fracturing treatment or an acid fracturing treatment.
Early radioactive tracers that were employed suffered from
plating-out (liquids) and poor integrity (RA-coated sand
grains). Early spectral gamma ray tools were limited by the
number of spectral channels available for distinguishing
between multiple RA isotopes. In the last two decades, the
introduction of non-washoff RA ceramic bead tracers and
4 R.D. BARREE, M.K. FISHER, R.A. WOODROOF SPE 77442

spectral gamma ray logging tools with in-excess of 500

spectral channels for isotope resolution has extended the
precision and reliability of this diagnostic technology. These
quantum improvements in the technology have been
supplemented by mathematical algorithms that enable spatial
identification of tracer placement within the spectral GR tool’s
24”- 30” area of investigation. Additional algorithms enable
the computation of near-wellbore traced proppant
concentrations and associated propped widths. The sum total
of these quantum and step-wise improvements represent the
evolution of this multifaceted diagnostic technology.

Case Histories. The utility of this diagnostic technology can

best be represented by a series of case histories which
demonstrate the application of this technology in identifying
the following five potential completion improvement
opportunities: a) fracture height greater than designed; b)
unstimulated perforations; c) understimulated perforations; d)
proppant movement and e) completion surveillance. The case
histories described will include a brief summary of both the
identified completion improvement opportunity, and where
available, any remedial actions taken by the operator.
The first case history involves a poorly-consolidated sand
in an offshore Gulf of Mexico well which was originally
designed to be frac-packed. A water contact below and a wet
sand above the perforated pay interval, together with marginal
cement placement across the zone, led the operator to perform
a traced minifrac treatment. The same borate Xlink gel
planned for the frac pack was used as the minifrac fluid, in an
effort to characterize the extent of vertical hydraulic
communication. The spectral GR image shown in Fig. 4
reveals that the traced minifrac fluid vectored above and
below the modeled fracture height, extending into both
potential water-producing intervals. It was thus determined
that a lower-viscosity treatment fluid would be required to
avoid fracing into one or both of the potential water-producing
intervals. As a direct result of this image, the completion plan
was changed, and a high-rate water pack treatment was
subsequently designed and pumped. The zone ultimately
produced both sand-free and water-free for more than 6
months following the treatment.
Fig. 4-Gulf of Mexico mini-frac prior to frac pack.
The second case history centers around a well in
southeastern Oklahoma in which a laminated sandstone was
prop-fraced in two stages and commingled. The upper zone
was fraced with 300,000 lb of proppant and traced with two
RA tracers, Sc-46 (scandium) in the 1-4 lb/gal and Ir-192
(iridium) in the 4-5 lb/gal. When the two zones were
comingled, gas production stabilized at a disappointing 1.2
MMCFD. The spectral GR image depicted in Fig. 5 shows
that the upper four sets of perforations remained largely
unstimulated after this upper zone treatment. Based on this
image and the disappointing postfrac production rates, the
operator decided to set a bridge plug below the fourth set of
perforations and pump a smaller (140,000 lb) refrac treatment.
After cleanup, the comingled production stabilized at 2.1
MMCFD, a 75% increase in production. The refrac was
estimated to have added an additional 0.5-0.75 BCF of
reserves.

Fig. 5-Refrac Candidate identified from tracer image.

SPE 77442 A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO HYDRAULIC FRACTURE DIAGNOSTIC TECHNOLOGIES
The third case history focuses on a well in west Texas in
which a limestone was acidized with 6,000 gal of hydrochloric
acid broken into three 2,000-gallon stages separated by rock
salt diverter stages. The three acid stages were traced with Sc-
46 (scandium) tracer, and the two diverter stages were traced
with Ir-192 (iridium) tracer (first diverter stage) and Sb-124
(antimony) tracer (second diverter stage). The spectral GR
image presented in Figure 6 indicates minimal traced acid
placement across the lower one-half of the zone, along with
relatively ineffective acid diversion. In an effort to extend the
acid coverage across the lower one-half of the zone, the
operator ran in with tubing and a packer set below the
uppermost perforated interval and reacidized the
understimulated perforated intervals below the packer. A
smaller (3,500 gal) traced acid treatment was pumped down
tubing, resulting in much better acid coverage across the
middle of the zone. Figure 7 shows the spectral GR image run
after the traced reacidizing treatment. Figure 8 presents a
production plot for the well showing a significant increase in
gas production following the reacidizing treatment.
Fig.6-Original acid treatment did not cover lower one-half of pay
interval.
Fig.7-Results of reacidizing treatment showing full coverage of
pay zone.
5
Fig.8-Production Results showing improvement after re-acidizing
unstimulated interval.
The fourth case history involves a well in far west Texas
involving a laminated sandstone that was prop-fraced with
79,000 lb of 16/30 Ottawa sand and traced with two RA
tracers, Ir-192 in the 2-8 lb/gal and Sc-46 in additional 8 lb/gal
containing a fibrous material designed to control proppant
flowback. The operator had been plagued with postfrac
proppant flowback cutting out pumps and covering
perforations. By tracing the late 8 lb/gal proppant stage
containing the flowback control aid with a separate isotope, he
hoped to assess the utility of the additive in controlling
flowback. The spectral GR image presented in Figure 9
reveals minimal placement of the Sc-46 traced flowback
control aid laced proppant across the three lower perforated
intervals. The bulk of that last proppant stage appears to have
been placed across the uppermost perforated interval. The
most revealing perforated interval is the longest one near the
middle of the zone. This interval exhibits significant
placement of Ir-192 traced proppant (without the flowback
control aid) below the perforations and minimal traced
proppant of any kind across the perforations. This tracer
signature is often observed in conjunction with proppant
settling/flowback. After placing this well on pump, the
operator experienced sandflow problems, necessitating the
replacement of two pumps damaged by sand cutting. The
culprit appears to have been an early site-screenout that
occurred across the longest perforated interval prior to
placement of the flowback control aid laced proppant. The
operator ultimately set a temporary bridge plug above the
lower two perforated intervals and eliminated any further
sanding problems. The long-term solution was to initiate the
addition of the flowback control aid earlier in the proppant
ramp, in order to get it placed across all perforated intervals
prior to any early-site screenouts.
6 R.D. BARREE, M.K. FISHER, R.A. WOODROOF
Fig. 9-Proppant flowback problems identified in lower zone
through lack of tracer counts in perforated interval.
The last case history falls under the category of completion
surveillance. The implementation of this technology on a
broad scale across a field often identifies totally unexpected
problems/opportunities. Figure 10 presents one case in point.
This spectral GR image was generated following a multistage
Cotton Valley frac sequence. This portion of a larger image
revealed two interesting anomalies, one near “X020 ft” and
one near “X120 ft.” The CCL curve presented in track 2
reveals an absence of perforations where intended near “X020
ft” and a presence of perforations where unintended near
“X120 ft.” In essence this set of perforations was shot
approximately 100 ft deeper than designed. The worse news to
the operator was that the intended interval was gas-bearing
and the unintended interval was wet. The operator ended up
squeezing off the “X120 ft” interval and reperforating the
“X020 ft” interval. Other similarly identified
problems/opportunities that have been identified by this
broader completion surveillance application of the technology
have included: a) fracing through 4 leaking casing connections
with minimal cement coverage; b) fracing through a leaking
cement stage tool and c) acidizing through a casing anomaly
with minimal cement coverage.
SPE 77442
Fig. 10-Tracer identified perforations shot off depth.
Any and all diagnostic technologies have nuances that limit
their range of effectiveness. The main limitation associated
with RA tracing and spectral gamma ray logging is the
logging tool’s 24” -30” area of investigation. In highly
deviated wellbores (>30 degrees), hydraulic fractures can
leave the plane of the wellbore such that a vertical fracture
may be visible to this technology for only a few feet above
and below the interval where it connects with the wellbore.
Even then, however, there is evidence within the tracer images
of this phenomenon. Typically there will be a uniform rate of
decrease in tracer counts above and below the perforated
interval, with the lowest energy tracers disappearing most
quickly (due to more rapid attenuation), and an increase in the
relative distance measurement above and below the fracture’s
coincident interval as the fracture begins to deviate from
the wellbore.
Production/Temperature Logging. Production logging, in
one form or another, has been around since the Schlumberger
brothers ran their first electric line log. As technology
advanced, the sensors used for production logging also
advanced, from the infancy of a temperature survey to what is
now considered a full production logging string of
temperature, pressure, fluid density, dielectric and spinner.
With the increase in tool resolution, production logging
expanded from a “problem solving” log to a tool used in
hydraulic fracture diagnostics.
The following listing describes the principal uses of the
individual sensors:
• Temperature Sensor
Identifying production entry points
Verifying channeling behind pipe
• Pressure Sensor
Determining density within the wellbore
SPE 77442 A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO HYDRAULIC FRACTURE DIAGNOSTIC TECHNOLOGIES 7

Converting reservoir production to surface

production

• Fluid Density
Determining density within the wellbore
Determining gas/fluid ratio

• Dielectric
Determining water/hydrocarbon ratio
Critical in three-phase determinations

• Spinner
Profiling production to determine treatment
effectiveness

Case Histories. Our first case history involves a well in which

a hydraulic fracture treatment was performed and a
temperature log was subsequently run. The temperature log
confirmed that a fracture communicated downward into a
water-bearing sand via a cement channel.

Fig. 12-Shows lack of production contribution from unpropped

perforated intervals.

The combination log indicated that the upper interval did

Fig. 11-Shows cement channel identified from temperature log.
The spectral gamma ray log shows proppant placement
from X961M down to the base of the water-bearing sand at
X011M. Across this same interval, the temperature data
reflect a lower than normal gradient between the perforations
and the lower sand, thus verifying communication through the
now stimulated channel. As a result of this survey, a cement
squeeze operation was performed to isolate the water-bearing
sand and a refrac of the perforated interval was performed.
The second case history incorporates a temperature/spinner
survey run in conjunction with a spectral gamma-ray survey
to determine the effectiveness of a propped fracture treatment.
The X500 to X570 ft perforated interval was not open during
the initial fracture treatment, but the frac model predicted
upward growth into this zone. After the treatment, the X500 to
X570 ft interval was perforated and the logging survey
was run.
not get treated and was contributing very little production. The
middle perforated interval computed approximately 80% of
the total production from across the upper portion at
approximately X640 to X700 ft. This production also
corresponds to the traced proppant placement. The remaining
portion of the middle perforated interval appears to be
understimulated and was contributing very little production.
The lower perforated interval was producing approximately
20% of the total production.
A refrac was performed in the upper set of perforations
and the well produced 5 MMscfd (+40%) more than after the
original fracture treatment.
In the third case history a spectral gamma ray log was run
to evaluate a fracture treatment. The spectral data indicated
good proppant placement across the X250 to X300 and X750
to X800 ft perforated intervals but very little if any across the
X320 to X360 ft perforated interval. Prior to a planned refrac
of the X320 to X360 ft interval, the operator decided to run a
production log to identify the source of the higher than
expected water production.
8 R.D. BARREE, M.K. FISHER, R.A. WOODROOF
Fig.13-Production log used to identify source of water production.
The analysis of the production data indicated water and gas
production from a set of perforations (not shown) below X850
ft and gas production from both the X250 to X300 and X750-
X800 ft intervals. Interestingly the unstimulated X320 to X360
ft interval was producing the majority of the water. Further
investigation identified the X320 to X360 ft interval as a
possible water-bearing zone at or near original reservoir
pressure, while the gas zones had been slightly pressure
depleted. This led to a higher fracture closure pressure in the
X320 to X360 ft interval, preventing it from being propped by
the fracture treatment.
A subsequent cement squeeze operation isolated the
problem water production and prevented costly water
deposal issues.
In the fourth case history a combination production
log/spectral gamma-ray survey was run to evaluate a propped
fracture treatment, thus revealing an unforeseen production
problem. According to the tracer interpretation, the majority of
the fracture treatment was placed above the intended zones of
interest. It was not until the production log data were reviewed
along side that of the spectral gamma-ray data that the higher
than expected proppant placement could be corroborated.
A cooling anomaly, along with a fluid density decrease,
apparent velocity increase, and moderate tracer counts
observed across the X270 to X280 ft interval all indicated that
the perforations were shot off-depth (approximately 13 ft).
Upon closer review, it was also determined that the lower
perforated interval was shot off-depth by approximately the
same footage, thus explaining the tracer counts observed
across the shale.
In this case the location of both perforated intervals
overlapped productive sands that allowed for some treatment
of the intended intervals. Nevertheless, the likelihood of this
zone ultimately proving to be an underperformer is significant,
as a result of the targeted intervals not being fully treated.
SPE 77442
Fig.14-Production log used to identify perforations that were shot
off depth.
Direct Far-Field Fracture Diagnostics
Tiltmeter and Microseismic fracture mapping services provide
key information including fracture orientation and dimensions.
Questions that every operator would like to know about their
hydraulic fractures are:
Does my fracture cover the entire pay zone as designed,
and is it confined to that zone?
Am I getting efficient staging of my treatments (proper
number of stages, optimal-sized stages, proper proppant
volume and concentration)?
What are the fracture dimensions (top/bottom of fracture
and length), and how do they compare with the modeled
dimensions and resultant production estimates?
How does the fracture orientation and length affect my
choice of well spacing and infill drilling locations to most
effectively drain this reservoir?
These questions and many others are answered with a
combination of direct fracture diagnostics and soundly
engineered fracture modeling.
Microseismic Fracture Mapping. A formation is stressed
during a fracture treatment because of leak-off induced pore
pressure increases and net treating pressures. This affects the
stability of existing planes of weakness in the formation in the
vicinity of the hydraulic fracture (natural fractures, flaws,
bedding planes), many of which are likely to fail. The
increasing pore pressure reduces the net effective stress
holding these planes of weaknesses together, in effect
lubricating them, so that they can slip and fail, similar to
earthquakes along faults. These shear slippages emit elastic
waves (sound), which can be detected by sensitive
instrumentation.
SPE 77442 A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO HYDRAULIC FRACTURE DIAGNOSTIC TECHNOLOGIES 9

MICROSEISMIC INTERPRETATION very different result. The measured fracture dimensions were
much longer and much better contained than the model had
X Microseisms Originate In An Envelope Surrounding predicted and the actual measured length-to-height ratio was
The Fracture, Giving closer to 5 to 1. The frac model was then calibrated, honoring
– Height all known input parameters, net pressure history from the
– Length treatment, AND measured frac dimensions so that an
– Azimuth MICROSEISMS
INDUCED BY STRESS accurately calibrated frac model could be used on future
– Asymmetry MICROSEISMS fracture treatments in this field.
CHANGES NEAR TIP
INDUCED BY
LEAKOFF

Calibrated fracture model matches

microseismic mapping results

ENVELOPE
NATURAL FRACTURES

Fig. 15-Above illustration shows the leakoff induced poroelastic

effect, which induces the majority of detectable slippages near
the fracture. Fracture model prediction

Sensitive seismic receivers (tri-axial geophones or

accelerometers) are placed in an offset wellbore to detect the
acoustic energy or sound emitted by the microearthquakes
(microseisms) generated by a hydraulic fracturing operation.
Using the difference in velocity between compressional and
shear wave arrivals, the distance to and depth of each
microseism emission can be measured. From this information
and the application of hodogram analyses, the direction to
each microseism is found, allowing a map to be built in real-
time as a frac is growing, pinpointing the location of each of
these events. In plan view, this map provides the orientation
of the fracture as well as indicating other fractures, which may Fig. 16-The above Cotton Valley Microseismic Map shows a frac
model prediction along with a calibrated fracture geometry, which
splinter off in additional planes. From the side view, fracture honors the microseismic mapped dimensions and the treatment
height (top and bottom) and length can be seen. net pressure history.
Limitations of microseismic mapping include lithology,
observation well availability and observation well location. How could the fracture model have been incorrect, even
The preferred location is near the center of the fracture and with accurate input parameters from stress testing and cores
normal to the treatment well. Observation distances are and after matching net pressure? Figure 17 illustrates what all
dictated by the ability of the formation to transmit acoustic fracture models and modelers must generally assume, that
energy – typically the ideal distance is from 1000 ft. to 2000 each layer is completely elastically coupled to adjacent layers
ft. from the frac well. The formations that are most conducive so that the net pressure changes from one layer to the next are
to generating and transmitting microseisms are typically tight acting upon the fracture tip as it penetrates that layer. In the
sands, limestones and hard, naturally fractured shales. Soft, real world, not all layers are elastically coupled. They can de-
high porosity formations and interestingly, dolomites, bond from adjacent layers or not be well bonded to begin with,
typically require a closer observation-to-treatment well allowing fractures to grow to the interface and then blunt or
distance than the range listed above. The observation well slip laterally, causing rapid loss of net pressure (energy) and
must be extremely quiet with perforations plugged back leverage at the fracture tip and, therefore, less height growth
temporarily during the monitoring operation. than predicted by the model. With direct diagnostic
measurements of fracture height, along with net pressure
Microseismic Mapping Example. The example shown here history and rock properties, the model can be calibrated so that
is from the Upper Cotton Valley in east Texas 4. This it reflects the degree of interface slippage and fracture blunting
formation is comprised of highly laminated shale/sand caused by this composite layering effect.
sequences with relatively modest stress contrasts between
layers. 3-D Fracture models tend to predict a short, tall
fracture due to lack of significant stress barriers relative to the
net fracture pressure, so that the frac length-to-height ratio
shown here is about 2 to 1. Microseismic mapping gave a
10 R.D. BARREE, M.K. FISHER, R.A. WOODROOF
Increased fracture Interface Composite
closure stress slippage layering
Fig. 17-Above illustration shows full elastic coupling (left)
compared with fracture blunting due to interface slippage
(middle) and fracture splintering due to interface slippage and
composite layering (right), each arresting fracture height growth
differently. The composite layering effect can significantly reduce
fracture height growth beyond that predicted by a model
assuming elastic coupling of layers.
Tiltmeter Fracture Mapping. Tilt mapping has been
commercially available for more than ten years, and more than
6000 fracs have been mapped thus far. Tiltmeters are very
sensitive, electronic “carpenter’s levels” which can measure
changes in the earth’s tilt from deformation caused by a
fracture’s displacement down to one part in a billion.
Depending upon the location of the instruments, tiltmeters can
measure fracture azimuth, dip, height, length, and even width.
The theory is very simple – a fracture displaces the earth as it
grows, and tiltmeters are able to measure the deformation
pattern caused by these displacements. Inversion of the
deformation pattern allows for calculation of the size and
orientation of the frac or fracs that created the deformation.
Surface tiltmeters determine the azimuth and dip of a fracture,
while tiltmeters placed downhole in offset wells are used
primarily to determine height and length of a fracture. A new
generation of downhole tiltmeters can be placed in the
treatment well itself, eliminating the need for an offset
observation well, and provide direct measurements of fracture
height and width during a mini-frac, waterfrac or acid frac 2.
Limitations are typically a result of having the proper
observation vantage point: being near enough to the fracture
to be able to measure the resulting deformation, so for surface
tiltmapping in wells deeper than 10,000’, fractures must be
relatively large. Downhole tiltmapping is most successful
when performed in nearby observation wells that are within
two or three times the length of the fracture away from the
treatment well. Tiltmapping works in any type of lithology
from very soft, unconsolidated rock to very stiff carbonates.
Surface Tilt Mapping Example. This example is from a pilot
refrac project in the Barnett Shale in north Texas 3. This is a
very low permeability gas-bearing formation that has seen
resurgence in activity due to the economically favorable
application of water-frac technology. After fracturing
conventionally in this reservoir for many years, the
opportunity existed for identification of suitable candidates for
restimulation, and some of the results were much better than
expected. Surface tilt mapping provides some insights about
SPE 77442
why refracs in some areas perform much better than in other
areas.
Considerable theoretical work has been done indicating
that refracs might reorient themselves in a direction up to 90
degrees from the original fracture azimuth under the right
conditions. In a low permeability reservoir, production causes
a local redistribution of pore pressure in an expanding
elliptical pattern around a well. This depletion reduces the
maximum horizontal stress component (along the fracture’s
length) faster than the minimum stress, so if the depletion
induced stress reduction in the minimum stress direction is
substantially less than the drop in the original maximum
horizontal stress, then a refracture may grow in a direction
perpendicular from the original treatment. This can have
some very favorable consequences – a new fracture in an
undrained or less-drained direction, and since the original
fracture is typically also in the direction of maximum
permeability, this new fracture now has that maximum
permeability feeding into it all along it’s length. The primary
factors then are original horizontal deviatoric stress (the
difference between the minimum and maximum horizontal
stresses), the amount of pressure depletion that has taken
place, and the difference in horizontal stress reduction in the
original maximum versus original minimum direction.
Fig. 18-Reorientation of stress field due to depletion.
Tilt mapping was performed on this pilot to determine
refrac orientation with some interesting results. As can be
seen from the figure, the original fracture direction was NE-
SW. The refrac treatment in this well began by extending
predominately N-S, but rapidly began curving until it reached
a NW-SE orientation – orthogonal to the original fracture
treatment. At the time of the refrac, the well’s production had
been steady at 50-100Mscf/d, and the refrac boosted that
production 8-fold (see figure 20). Even after increasing sales-
line pressure, the well was still producing 250-300Mscf/d
more than 6 months later – very quickly paying out the refrac
pilot costs and adding incremental production.
SPE 77442 A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO HYDRAULIC FRACTURE DIAGNOSTIC TECHNOLOGIES
Fig. 19-Fracture growth perpendicular to initial azimuth.
Fig. 20-Production decline for first 5 years after initial frac
procedure, then decline for an additional 7 years following refrac.
Downhole Tiltmapping Example. Downhole Tiltmeters are
used to directly measure the dimensions (height, length and
width) of a hydraulic fracture. As the fracture grows, it
deforms or bends the earth surrounding the fracture and that
deformation is measured by a vertical array of tiltmeters
placed downhole in offsetting wellbores, adjacent to the
interval being fractured. Because the downhole array is much
closer to the fracture than a surface array, the signals are more
than 1000 times larger and a very distinct pattern is seen that
is used to identify fracture dimensions.
The following case is from a series of fracture injections in
the Atoka Shale in northeastern Oklahoma 5. This project was
initiated to determine the ability to repeatedly inject large
volumes of drill cuttings waste at fracturing pressure.
Injections took place in the Atoka Shale and the Wilcox Sand,
and multiple diagnostic technologies as well as core-throughs
verified the fracture locations, azimuths and dimensions. The
following figure shows the downhole tiltmeter-measured
fracture dimensions for seven injections in the Atoka Shale
interval along with a 3-D fracture model geometry determined
from history matching of net pressure. The thin ovals are the
tilt-measured geometry from the seven injection sequences
and the heavy dashed oval is the fracture model geometry. As
can be seen, the fracture model geometry predicts growth that
is essentially radial (height and length about equal) because
11
the formation properties do not change much across this
interval (see gamma ray log at far right of figure). Actual
measured geometry from the downhole tiltmeters tells a much
different story, the fractures are better contained and much
longer than the net pressure matched model predicted. The
fracture model was subsequently calibrated (heavy solid oval
line) using the composite layering effect setting within the
fracture model so that the model now predicts a much more
accurate geometry as a result of integrating direct
fracture measurements.
GR log
1600
Fracture modeling
1700 (no confinement
mechanism)
1800
Depth (ft)
Fracture modeling
(composite layering
effect)
1900
2000
Inferred geometry from
2100 downhole tiltmeter
mapping
2200
-400 -200 0 200 400
Along Fracture Length (ft)
Fig. 21-Fracture Geometry from 7 frac treatments in same interval
as measured by downhole tiltmeters along with uncalibrated and
calibrated 3-D model geometries.
Modeling versus Diagnostics
Today, several different fracture diagnostic technologies are
available which estimate or measure key fracture parameters.
Each diagnostic technology has inherent strengths and
weaknesses, and in some cases more than one technology
needs to be applied in order to adequately describe the fracture
parameters most important to the individual treatment. Even
with the availability of these diagnostic technologies, it is
important to understand that simply measuring the fracture
dimensions is still a “post-mortem” picture of the fracture. It
does not predict how a different frac design in the same well
would have grown, nor does it predict how the same frac
design in a different well will behave. Fracture models are the
most widely applied (and misapplied) diagnostic tool and are
useful as a predictive tool for fracture optimization, however,
they all suffer from an incomplete understanding of the
physics of how a fracture propagates in a formation.
Therefore, the two technologies must be “married” such that
direct physical measurements of fracture growth can be
coupled to a 3-D fracture simulator resulting in a calibrated
frac model which captures the essential physics of fracture
growth in a given reservoir while honoring direct fracture
diagnostic data and the net pressure signature from
the treatment.
12 R.D. BARREE, M.K. FISHER, R.A. WOODROOF SPE 77442

A complete picture of the fracture growth and geometry Waterfracs,” SPE paper 63034 presented at the 2000
can only be realized when fracture diagnostics and physically SPE ATCE in Dallas, October 1-4.
consistent models are combined at multiple scales. For 5. Griffin, L.G., Wright, C.A., Davis, E.J., Wolhart,
example, tracer, temperature, or other near-well diagnostics S.L., and Moschovidis, Z.A., “Surface and Downhole
are required to pin-point fluid entry into the fracture and Tiltmapping: An Effective Tool for Monitoring
determine which perforations are open during each phase of Downhole Drill Cuttings Disposal”, SPE paper 63032
the treatment. This knowledge is necessary as a first constraint presented at 2000 SPE ATCE in Dallas, October 1-4.
to the modeling process, but by itself is not sufficient to
constrain the model. The far-field fracture geometry must also
be defined by tiltmeter or microseismic mapping to determine
the general size and shape of the fracture and identify potential
confining layers and mechanisms. These direct measurements
must be integrated into a numerical model of the fracturing
process that recognizes and accounts for identified physical
processes of fluid flow, solid transport, rock deformation, and
fracture containment. The input parameters to the model,
while based on the best available well-log and reservoir
information, must be calibrated based on the direct diagnostic
measurements to assign the correct level of importance to
various containment mechanisms.
Only with this degree of fracture diagnostic
characterization and coupled modeling can we really
understand the controls on fracture geometry evolution. With
this integrated approach a predictive fracture design model can
be developed for a reservoir or development area. Using the
predictive, calibrated model, the stimulation process can be
optimized to provide the required conductivity and maximum
effective fracture length required to maximize production.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Pinnacle Technologies and
ProTechnics, a Core Laboratories Company, for permission to
publish this paper. Special appreciation is expressed to Mark
Warren and Rena Jackson for assistance in preparing the
temperature/production logging section and log graphics and
to Doug Elliott for assistance in font selection and
layup advice.

References:

1. Warpinski, N.R., 1996. “Hydraulic Fracture

Diagnostics,” SPE Journal of Petroleum Technology,
October.
2. Wright, C.A., Davis, E.J., Ward, J.F., Griffin, L.G.,
Fisher, M.K., Lehman, L.V., Fulton, D.D., Podowski,
J., and Grieser, W.V., “Real-time Fracture Mapping
from the “Live” Treatment Well,” SPE paper 71648
presented at the 2001 SPE ATCE in New Orleans,
Sept. 30 – Oct. 3.
3. Siebrits, E., et al. “Refracture Reorientation
Enhances Gas Production in Barnett Shale Tight Gas
Wells,” SPE paper 63030 presented at the 2000 SPE
ATCE held in Dallas, October1-4.
4. Mayerhofer, M.J., et al, “East Texas Hydraulic
Fracture Imaging Project: Measuring Hydraulic
Fracture Growth of Conventional Sandfracs and