Integrated Microseismic Monitoring for Field Optimization in the Marcellus Shale - A Case Study
- Carl Wilbur Neuhaus (MicroSeismic Inc.) | Sherilyn C. Williams-Stroud (MicroSeismic Inc.) | Christine Remington (MicroSeismic Inc.) | William Barker (MicroSeismic Inc.) | Keith Blair (Gastar Exploration Ltd) | Garrett Neshyba (Gastar Exploration Ltd) | Taylor McCay (Gastar Exploration Ltd)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, 30 October-1 November, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- Publication Date
- Document Type
- Conference Paper
- 2012. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 5.6.1 Open hole/cased hole log analysis, 3 Production and Well Operations, 5.1.2 Faults and Fracture Characterisation, 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 4.1.5 Processing Equipment, 3.2.3 Hydraulic Fracturing Design, Implementation and Optimisation, 5.6.3 Deterministic Methods, 2.2.2 Perforating, 2.5.2 Fracturing Materials (Fluids, Proppant), 1.10 Drilling Equipment, 4.3.4 Scale, 5.6.4 Drillstem/Well Testing, 5.1.1 Exploration, Development, Structural Geology, 1.2.3 Rock properties, 5.8.2 Shale Gas, 5.8.4 Shale Oil, 1.6 Drilling Operations, 1.14 Casing and Cementing
- 0 in the last 30 days
- 566 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 9.50|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 28.00|
The work presented in this paper focuses on an integrative analysis of hydraulic fracture treatments conducted in the Marcellus Shale. The treatments have been monitored by a permanently installed array of buried geophones used to detect microseismic events. These event sets were analyzed in conjunction with available data from other sources, such as well logs and well cores, as well as information on reservoir properties, regional and local geology and other sub-surface structural information. Passive seismic data was acquired by an array of 101 permanently installed geophones buried and cemented in place at a depth of 150 ft in purpose-drilled boreholes covering an area of over 18 square miles providing high resolution stimulation monitoring. The permanent installation of geophones below the surface allows for significant increase in signal-to-noise ratio and consistent comparison of hydraulic fracture treatments for any given number of wells under the array footprint.
This integrative analysis determined how various factors related to the specific reservoir geology in the Marcellus and to what extent the variability of hydraulic fracture treatments impacted the microseismic results. The next step of the evaluation investigated the relationship between hydrocarbon production and the microseismic results, relative to changes in geology and variability of the stimulation approach.
Analysis of stress changes indicated by the microseismic source mechanisms was used to explain the asymmetry of microseismicity about the wellbore. Relationships and statistics of treatment options with respect to the monitoring results were investigated, including the modeled discrete fracture network, the modeled fracture volume, the stimulated reservoir volume, and the cumulative microseismic moment of the event set. The initial production (IP) was compared to reservoir and engineering parameters, such as treatment pressures, sequence of treatments (toe-to-heel vs. zipper-frac), net pressures, and stage spacing, to determine if the variability in the microseismic results is due to engineering differences or to spatially-varying reservoir properties. Simple well test simulations were performed to investigate different fracture and flow models, and compare results to the IP and available reservoir properties.
Microseismic monitoring has quickly become a crucial technology in unconventional reservoirs, drastically improving the industry's understanding of the various processes occurring during hydraulic fracture stimulation treatments. Improved equipment, improved signal processing, and data analysis going far beyond merely displaying event locations has led to a substantial gain in popularity in recent years (Neuhaus and Miskimins, 2011). An ever increasing number of operators now consider microseismic monitoring an essential technology for completion and treatment optimization as well as field development optimization.
|File Size||16 MB||Number of Pages||16|