SPE-170934-MS

Natural Fractures in Unconventional Shale Reservoirs in US and their

Roles in Well Completion Design and Improving Hydraulic Fracturing
Stimulation Efficiency and Production
Bingjian Li, SPE

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27–29 October 2014.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
Most of the shale reservoirs in US land are naturally fractured. The fracture intensity and types vary from
one shale to another. Even within the same shale in the same field, the heterogeneity of fracture intensity
can be often expected to be high in a horizontal well. The current popular geometrical completion design
can potentially ignore the existence of natural fractures. Hence, maximizing stimulation efficiency without
understanding existing natural fractures can be a challenge. In this paper, study was made of the majority
of the published case studies related to natural fractures in the US shales in the last 20 years. The evidence
of natural fractures from either outcrops or subsurface data, i.e. core, borehole images, or other data is
summarized for each studied shale. The latest studies show that the hydraulic fracture propagation can be
strongly influenced by existing natural fractures regardless of whether they are open or closed. The roles
of existing fractures in the shales include: 1) providing enhanced reservoir permeability for improved
productivity if they are open and effectively connected by hydraulic fractures; 2) promoting much better
fracturing network complexity regardless of whether they are open or closed prior to the stimulation; 3)
giving possible negative impact sometimes, i.e. high water cut, if they are connected with wet zones below
or above the reservoirs. It can be concluded that engineered completion designs that employ accurate
knowledge of natural fracture data, in-situ stresses, and other reservoir and completion quality indicators
as inputs can provide opportunities for enhancing stimulation efficiency and fracturing network com-
plexity. This in turn can lead to better connectivity to a larger reservoir volume and access to more
drainage area in the shales.

Introduction
The US shale gas story actually featured natural fractures. William Hart, a local gunsmith, drilled the first
commercial natural shale gas well in US in Fredonia, Chautauqua County, NY in 1821, in shallow,
low-pressure rock with fractures[1] [2]. The well was first dug to a depth of 27ft in a shale which
outcropped in the area, then later drilled to a depth of 70ft using 1.5 inch diameter borehole. The produced
gas was piped to an innkeeper on a stagecoach route[1]. Then the well was produced without any
stimulation for 37 years until 1858 when it supplied enough natural gas for a grist mill and for lighting
2 SPE-170934-MS

Figure 1—US oil and gas production from shale and other tight resources 2000-2013 (Sieminski, 2014).

in four shops. It was a combination of the idea from Mr. Hart to drill the well and the presence of the
natural fractures in the gas shale that made the 1st commercial shale gas discovery possible in shale gas
history.
The Big Sandy gas field, in naturally fractured Devonian shales, started development in 1915, in Floyd
County, Kentucky [2][3]. By 1976, five thousand wells had been drilled in Kentucky alone, producing from
the Ohio Shale and the Cleveland Shale. Since at least the 1940s, the shale wells had been stimulated by
detonating explosives down in the hole. In 1965 some operators started fracturing wells hydraulically
using relatively small fracs which generally increased production. This field had an expected ultimate
recovery of two trillion cubic feet of gas, but the average per-well recovery was small, and largely
depended on the presence of natural fractures[2]. Production from the US unconventional shale oil and gas
has grown rapidly in recent years and has continued to grow as technology has been advanced (King,
2010). Technology has made many shale gas and oil resources more commercially viable in the last 6-7
years or so (see Fig.1).
Natural fractures are common in the US unconventional shale reservoirs. However, understanding of
the natural fracture characterization as well as their impact on well stimulation, completion and ultimately
production remains considerably variable from one reservoir to another. It is a fact that majority of the
laterals in the shales are still stimulated using geometrical completion designs for the perceived benefits
of time and cost savings. However, this may not necessarily result in the most optimal completion design.
In a recent study, it was reported that about 1/3 of the perforated clusters on average were not flowing as
measured by production logs (Slocombe et al, 2013, Fisher et al, 2004). Obviously the non-effective
perforation clusters are a big portion of the total stimulation cost. Such a waste of time and money will
not be able to be offset by the marginal savings from reduced data acquisition in the simple geometrical
completion compared with an engineered one.
Another even more serious question to be answered is – Do we really think our current well productions
from the geometrical completion are maximized already? Moncada et al (2013) showed a case study that
two laterals from the Eagle Ford shale had very similar reservoir quality (RQ) but were on very different
production trends (Fig.2). Well B has a cumulative production three times that Well A despite having a
RQ index lower than Well A. What are the drivers behind the scene to make the Well B performance so
much better than Well A? If such a hidden driver can’t be understood, then we will likely not be able to
SPE-170934-MS 3

make more successful Well B type completions

repeatedly. Moncada et al (2013) interpreted that it
was likely the existence of natural fractures as the
main reason that made Well B outperform Well A.
This will still not help us to be able to drill another
Well B before we do some serious home work to
understand the characterization of the natural frac-
ture systems in the field.
Some large through-going open fractures and/or
faults can cause water production problems for cer-
tain reservoirs (Chen, 2013). Then it is crucial to
understand the precise locations for those potential
Figure 2—Eagle Ford crossplot of normalized production verse RQ
water connectors so that we might be able to avoid (above) and RQ properties for two wells (after Moncada et al, 2013).
perforation clusters that are too close to them for
minimizing water production.
It can be a long learning process to understand if a particular shale play is naturally fractured and their
impact to the reservoir completion and production. In this paper, our aim is to help geoscientists shorten
the learning curve by reviewing what has been learned from others in the similar shale reservoirs where
natural fractures were present so that some time and cost might be saved.
There are many shale plays in US ranging from Devonian to late Cretaceous in age (Figure 3). There
are about half dozen of shale plays are currently active in the drilling (Warlick, 2012) including Eagle
Ford, Bakken, Permian, Marcellus, Woodford, and Niobrara. It is intended to focus on reviewing those
currently actively drilling shale plays in this paper.

The Currently Active Shale Plays in US and Evidence for Natural Fractures
Eagle Ford Shale
The Eagle Ford shale play began in 2008 with the drilling of STS first well, Rock #1, located in La Salle
County, Texas. The play extends over an area of approximately 11 million acres from the Texas border
with Mexico to the eastern borders of Gonzales and Lavaca Counties (Fig.3). The southern border of the
trend is subparallel the Sligo shelf edge (Li, 2011). Stratigraphically, the late Cretaceous Eagle Ford
Formation lies unconformably above the Buda limestone and is overlain by the Austin Chalk. The Eagle
Ford dips from the outcrop located north of the Maverick basin to the Gulf of Mexico. Along its northeast
/ southwest depositional trend, the formation varies in thickness from 50 ft in the northeast to more than
300ft in the southwest (Kear and Glaser, 2013).
The Eagle Ford Formation in South and Central Texas is arguably one of the best shale plays within
the U.S. because of its: 1) relatively shallow depths in the oil window, 2) high percentage of carbonate
makes it easier to fracture, and 3) large lateral extent and thickness (Railroad Commission of Texas,
2011). The northern part of the play is the up-dip oil window with lower pressure and higher oil volumes,
the southern part of the play is down-dip and mainly dry gas, and in the middle is the wet gas or
condensate window (DrillingInfo, 2010). As of the end of 2010, there were over 1000 Eagle Ford
completions with another 3000 permitted wells and the current play is approximately 50 miles wide and
400 miles long, spanning over 15 counties in Texas.
The Eagle Ford can be classified into an upper and a lower unit that can be distinguished by changes
in log response. The upper Eagle Ford consists of inter-bedded dark and light gray calcareous mudrock,
while the lower Eagle Ford unit consists of mostly dark gray mudrock (Hentz and Ruppel, 2010).
Gas-prone organic material is typical of the upper Eagle Ford and more oil-prone organic material is found
within the lower Eagle Ford interval (Dawson and Almon, 2010).
4 SPE-170934-MS

Figure 3—Map of US Shale Plays (EIA, 2011).

Natural fractures are observed in the Eagle Ford outcrop exposed in the US Highway #90 road cut near
Lozier Canyon, West Texas. Figure 4 shows a few outcrop examples of natural fractures and fault. Figures
4-A and B present natural fractures cutting multiple lithological layers. They are mostly vertical or
sub-vertical highlighted in red lines. Note that the two fractures highlighted in Figure 4-B is also
sub-vertical and the fracture planes cut the road cut surface in an acute angle. Figure 4-C shows an
example of layer-bounded fracture which are often short in length but can be abundant in the brittle zones.
Figure 4-D gives an example of a sub-vertical fault. The displacement for the fault cannot be estimated
based on exposed outcrop.
Chen et al (2014) showed a few case studies on Eagle Ford natural fractures (see Fig. 5) on new
high-definition oil based mud-adapted microresistivity images. There are five natural fractures and one
fault identified within the 13-ft short interval in a pilot hole indicating quite strong natural fracture
evidence in the subsurface Eagle Ford for this studied location. The study also indicates that telling open
fractures from closed are possible using the inverted standoff images. Two open fractures with high
standoff are shown in the bottom zone (xx05-xx06ft in Fig.5). The rest of the fractures are likely closed
indicated by low standoff.
Based on image log interpretation, Kanneganti et al (2013) observed that natural fracture intensity and
azimuth appeared to vary as a function of the distance to a seismic-scale fault cut by the wellbore in his
case study. Specifically, a “damage zone” of about 500= (MD) was observed on either side of the fault and
was characterized by high fracture intensities and variable fracture azimuths ranging from 30°-82°.
Outside of this zone, fracture intensities are lower and fracture azimuths are constrained to a range of
70°-82°. The damage zone fracture density observed at 0.228 fracture/ft (or average spacing 4.3ft), while
the background zone having average density 0.041 fracture/ft (or 24.2 ft spacing).
Oil production for the maximum-production month was posted on the same basemap used for the gas
production in the Maverick basin. The best oil production is located in the southern sector of the basin (Li
et al, 2011). Oil production in the Hawkville area is from the condensate-rich gas located along the
northern edge of the Hawkville basin. The best production occurs to the northeast and is closely associated
SPE-170934-MS 5

with the faulting and structuring related to the

Karnes Trough. Li et al (2011) also concluded that
one of the 6 key production drivers in Eagle Ford is
the presence of natural fractures.
Bakken Shale
The Bakken Formation is present throughout a large
part of the 150,000 square mile Williston Basin
(Fig.6). The Williston basin is primarily located in
Eastern Montana, Western North Dakota and ex-
tends well into Saskatchewan Canada. The Bakken
was deposited in a marine low energy environment
during the transitional period between the Upper
Devonian and Lower Mississippian depositions.
The primary Bakken target is the middle member
which produces oil and associated gas. Although the Figure 4 —Outcrop examples showing natural fractures and fault in
upper and lower Bakken intervals are classified as Eagle Ford shale. Photos taken from the US Highway #90 road cut near
shales, the middle member rock type and reservoir Lozier Canyon area, West Texas.

properties can vary significantly transitioning be-

tween carbonate or clastic dominated rock even
along the same horizontal wellbore (Shelley, 2013).
Theloy et al (2013) published a 3-well case study
of the Bakken with natural fractures based on mi-
cro-resistivity images. A total of 80 natural fractures
were interpreted from the three laterals. Two frac-
ture sets were observed with the dominant set strik-
ing NW-SE and minor set NE-SW. The maximum
horizontal stress is estimated at N54E in the studied
field for Bakken Formation (Fig. 6).
Figure 5—Natural fractures and fault in Eagle Ford observed on new
Mullen et al (2010) showed another fracture generation high-definition OBM-adapted microresistivity image logs
study for Bakken based on LWD micro-resistivity from the subsurface (Chen, 2014). Track 1 – Depth in ft.; Track 2 –
images. He reported the highest fracture density Standard composite images; Track 3 – inverted resistivity images; track
4 – Inverted standoff images and Track 5 – array induction 10-in log
zone for Bakken in the well is as high as 0.69 (AE10), ZTBC impedivity reading (ZBTC) and inverted resistivity log
fracture/ft or 1.45ft spacing in the sweet spot zones. (RHO).

Permian Shales
The Midland Basin Wolfcamp/Cline Shale Oil play is one of the hottest in the U.S at present. Lately,
industry business has touted the potential of the Wolfcamp/Cline to be bigger than the Eagle Ford and
Bakken combined (Drillinginfo, 2014). For example, the hydrocarbon producing zone in the Bakken Shale
covers 10 to 120 ft in thickness. In Eagle Ford Shale, hydrocarbon producing formations are 150 to 300
feet in thickness. In contrast, the Permian Basin features a stacked stratigraphic column with as many as
nine targets susceptible to technological exploitation in the Midland and Delaware sub-basins with the
combined thickness of the Wolfcamp and Cline shales ranging from 1,300 to 1,800 feet. Think of four to
six Eagle Fords stacked atop each other, or up to a dozen Bakken Shales, and it is easy to understand why
“shale fever” is spreading through West Texas (Arthur et al, 2009). Both the Wolfcamp and Cline shales
in West Texas are early in the development cycle, though the odds suggest that these two names will
dominate industry conversations over the next half-decade in the way the Barnett, Haynesville, Bakken,
Eagle Ford and Marcellus did over the last.
6 SPE-170934-MS

Figure 6 —3-D view of the 3 laterals with natural fractures plotted along the wellbore. Upper inset shows strike plot for the natural fractures for each
well (from Sturm and Gomez, 2009, Theloy et al, 2013).

The Wolfcamp of the Midland Basin can be

sub-divided into at least 4 major intervals - A, B, C,
and D (Mohan et al, 2013). All intervals are prin-
cipally “shale” across the vast majority of the basin,
and all have organic content to one degree or an-
other. However, within that framework there is sig-
nificant variability. The A member is more carbon-
ate rich and overlies the B, which contains less
carbonate and more quartz, and tends to be organic-
rich. The C tends to be more clay rich and quite
thick. The D is cyclical containing multiple para-
sequence boundaries that are correlative across
large parts of the basin. To date the A, B, and D
have been demonstrated to have economic rates
with the B being the most prolific. In addition to
stratigraphic variability there is significant variation
spatially, especially near the basin margins. The Figure 7—Natural fractures in Wolfcamp Shale Formation observed on
Wolfcamp is a remarkably thick and correlative LWD microresistivity images (Modified from Brown et al, 2013)
stacked sequence of unconventional reservoirs with
potential for thousands of drilling locations. With so much potential and capital requirement, it becomes
imperative to better characterize and understand well performance.
Natural fracture evidence was shown in Brown et al’s (2013) case study for Wolfcamp. Open, healed
and partial open fractures were all observed based in LWD microresistivity images as shown in Figure 7.
Marcellus Shale
Marcellus shale is now one of the 10 largest gas fields in the world (Ventura, et al, 2013). The Marcellus
Formation is a black shale deposited in a marine setting in eastern North America[4]. Named for a
distinctive outcrop near the village of Marcellus, New York, in the United States (Clack, 1918), it extends
throughout much of the Appalachian Basin (Mayhood, 2008). The shale contains largely untapped natural
gas reserves. Stratigraphically, the Marcellus is the lowest unit of the Devonian age Hamilton Group, and
is divided into several sub-units. Although black shale is the dominant lithology, it also contains lighter
SPE-170934-MS 7

Figure 8 —Outcrop photo showing two natural fracture sets in Marcellus shale at Wolfe Quarry (Pommer et al, 2013). Rose diagram shows the strike
orientations for both J1 and J2 sets.

Figure 9 —Natural fractures imaged on high-definition OBM-Adapted microresistivity images acquired in Marcellus shale from a vertical well. Track
1 – depth in ft.; Track 2 – Static images; Track 3 – Fracture dip tadpole plot and Track 4 – Dynamic images.

shales and interbedded limestone layers due to sea level variation during its deposition. Maximum
thickness of the Marcellus ranges from 270 m (890 ft) in New Jersey, to 12 m (40 ft) in Canada. In West
Virginia, the Marcellus Formation is as much as 60 m (200 ft) thick. In extreme eastern Pennsylvania, it
is 240 m (790 ft) thick, thinning to the west, becoming only 15 m (49 ft) thick along the Ohio River, and
only a few feet in Licking County, Ohio[4].
Two natural joint sets (J1 & J2 sets) are observed in the Middle Devonian Marcellus shale of the
Appalachian Basin as observed in outcrop, core, and borehole images (Engelder et al, 2009). These joints
8 SPE-170934-MS

formed close to or at peak burial depth. When

present together, earlier J1 joints are crosscut by
later J2 joints. The J2 joints are found to be far more
pervasive throughout the exposed Devonian marine
clastic section on both sides of the basin. The J1 set
is nearly parallel the maximum compressive normal
stress. Similar two natural joints were also observed
by Pommer et al, 2013) on the outcrop.
The presence of systematic J1 joints in outcrops
of the Marcellus Shale on either side of the deep
central region of the Appalachian Basin increases
the probability that the J1 set will be found in the
Marcellus at depth. A compilation of proprietary Figure 10 —Natural fractures observed on the outcrop from Woodford
FMI images from recent wells penetrating the Mar- shale (Cardott, 2014).
cellus Shale confirms the presence of the J1 set at
depth (Engelder et al, 2009). Another more recent
case example is provided in Figure 9 showing nat-
ural fractures in the subsurface based on the new
high-definition OBM-adapted resistivity images.
The fracture has a sub-vertical dip angle (about 85
deg) and strike of NW-SE.
Woodford Shale
The Devonian Woodford Shale is a complex oil and
gas play. It covers virtually the entire state of Okla-
homa and is far more complex than other Devonian
black shales found in North America. This com-
plexity is especially evident in southern Oklahoma Figure 11—Natural fractures observed on Woodford shale core (Gale,
where the Woodford consists of alternating bands of 2008).
chert-like amorphous silica and silica-rich shale.
These chert-like silica bands can vary from seven inches (17.8 cm) thick, separated by one or two inches
(25 to 51 cm) of shale, to one inch (25 cm) of silica for every two feet (0.61 m) or more of shale.
Hemmesch et al (2014) described the Woodford shale as being dominated by organic-rich mudstone
inter-bedded with organic-rich carbonate. The Woodford’s structural geology and mineralogy have broad
implications, affecting drilling and completion design, production practices and ultimately well produc-
tivity. In particular, they can have a major impact on horizontal drilling, slowing penetration rates and
quickly destroying bits. Woodford Shale production in Oklahoma began in the 1930s. The first horizontal
wells were not drilled until 2004-2005 as gas prices increased and completion techniques improved.
Currently, almost 2,000 wells are in production with approximately 475 of them vertical and more than
1,500 of them horizontal.
Cardott (2014) presented an example of natural fractures from Woodford shale outcrop (see Fig. 10).
Two main fracture sets are observed which are approximately orthogonal to each other. Natural fractures
are also seen on core from subsurface as shown in Figure 11 (Gale, 2008).

Niobrara Shale
The late Cretaceous Niobrara shale is distributed in northeastern Colorado and parts of adjacent Wyoming,
Nebraska, and Kansas[6]. It is in the Denver-Julesburg Basin, which has long been a major oil and gas
province. The Niobrara is in its early stages as an emerging play. It has been compared by some to the
Bakken shale Formation farther to the north. Samson Oil & Gas is one of the earliest companies to
SPE-170934-MS 9

Figure 12—Natural fractures on Niobrara Shale outcrop[7] (photo by Vince Matthews, CGS)

establish a position in the Niobrara. One of the first Niobrara horizontal wells, known as the Jake well[7],
was drilled by EOG Resources in October 2009 and produced 50,000 barrels of oil in its first 90 days.
After a year, it is still producing more than 2,500 barrels of oil per month. This is significant given that
the average oil well in the U.S. generates just 300 barrels of oil per month.
The Niobrara Formation varies across the state, both laterally and vertically in the subsurface[7]. In the
eastern basins of Colorado, deposits include chalk, carbonate mud, shale, and silt. In the western basins,
less chalk is present, with more shale, silt, and sand that was shed from the rising mountains to the west.
The thickness of the Niobrara Formation varies between 200 and 400 feet in northeastern Colorado. In
northwestern Colorado, however, thicknesses can be much greater—in places more than 1500 feet.
The Niobrara Formation is subdivided into two units - the Fort Hays Limestone Member and the
Smoky Hill Member in the eastern portion of the state[76]. In the west, this subdivision is more difficult
to make. The Fort Hays Limestone is characterized by a small, sandy section at the base with the majority
being composed of carbonate sediments. Abundant chalk beds are separated by thin layers of limestone-
rich shale, silt, and organic material. The Fort Hays is between 10 and 60 feet thick in eastern Colorado,
and generally increases in thickness towards the south. The Smoky Hill Member of the Niobrara
Formation is the much thicker portion of the Niobrara. Typical thickness across Colorado ranges from
nearly 200 feet in the east, to more than 1400 feet in the northwest part of the state.
The Niobrara clay-rich limestones and shales contain in excess of 8% TOC (The total organic carbon)
in places[7]. The TOC variation includes that the northeastern portion of the Denver Basin has some of the
highest TOCs in Colorado (⬎5%), whereas the Niobrara Formation found farther west usually has carbon
contents that vary between 1 and 4%. The chalk layers, in some cases, may provide source rock potential
as well, but organic content is generally limited to between 1 and 2%. Porosity in the Niobrara is typically
less than 10% and permeability is very low.
Figure 12 provides an outcrop example showing natural fracture evidence for Niobrara Formation[7].
In the outcrop, it can be observed that some layers of rock are intensely fractured (center of photo) while
others (right side of photo) are not. This indicates that the lithology likely played an important role in
fracture generation. A subsurface example is shown in Figure 13 indicating many natural fractures were
recognized within Niobrara B zone as well as above based on micro-resistivity borehole images[5]. It is
also observed that the dominant fracture set striking at NW-SE with a minor set striking at NE-SW.

Natural Fracture Impact on Well Completion Design

Natural fractures can have enormous impacts on well completion design in the development of uncon-
ventional reservoirs (Han, 2011). This includes fracture point selecting, pump rate, perforation cluster
location and stage spacing as well as avoiding perforating near faults or even through-going large fractures
for water problems.
10 SPE-170934-MS

Frac point selection

Fracture initiation points are often selected by di-
viding the wellbore into equally spaced zones. This
produces a significant waste of fracturing capital
since the formation is almost always heterogeneous
(King, 2010). King (2010) also suggested selecting
optimum frac initiation points by focusing on the
most productive parts of the pay evaluated by mud
logs, rate of penetration of drilling, stress variation,
Sw and mineralogy from open-hole logs and cut-
tings. Fractures are difficult to initiate where total
rock stress are very high. However, zones with
natural fracture developed are much easier to be
fractured hydraulically. Therefore, knowing the nat- Figure 13—Interpreted natural fractures (shown in the 2nd track from
ural fracture distribution along the wellbore pro- right as light blue tadpole plot) from microresistivity images in the
Niobrara B zone and above from a well drilled in WBM[5].
vides important information for perforation cluster
locations.

Pumping rate optimization

Frac injection rate is a critical factor to be considered before stimulation process. King (2010) suggested
using high frac rate to achieve maximum complex fracturing where frac barriers are present. Low frac rate
(15-20ppm) in shale have been successful in opening natural fractures, but there has been no reported
success in developing lasting gas rates with small frac volumes.

Stage spacing
Where natural fractures, particularly multiple fracture sets, are present, wider zones of stimulated rock can
be expected for each individual stage. Therefore, it is suggested to use wider spacing between stages to
reduce overlap and optimize the stage design. Otherwise, closer stage spacing should be used in zones
with less natural fractures to avoid non-stimulated rock between stages.

Avoiding water problem

Water problems can be a concern for some shale reservoirs if faults and/or even some through-going large
fractures might be connected with water zones below or above the reservoirs. In this case, it is
recommended to keep good distance for perforation clusters away from major faults or potential water
connectors in the reservoirs.

Natural Fracture Impact on Stimulation Efficiency

Slocombe et al (2013) indicated that about 36% of the perforated clusters are not effective in the Eagle
Ford. That paper outlines a methodology of using log data obtained in horizontal wells for improving
stimulation efficiency and enhancing productivity. Stimulation efficiency can be enhanced by placing
stimulation into the zones with better RQ (reservoir quality) and grouping intervals of similar CQ
(completion quality). RQ can be defined by a number of properties including HC filled porosity, perm,
pore pressure, organic content and organic maturation, which together describe the reservoir potential
(Suarez-Rivera et al, 2011). Open fracture and partial open fractures enhance RQ as well as CQ. CQ can
be defined by a number of properties including containment to fracture height growth, fracturability, low
rock-fluid sensitivity, and low propensity to solids production, which together, describe the ability for
creating large surface area, in contact with the reservoir (Suarez-Rivera et al, 2011). Healed fractures and
multiple fracture sets enhance CQ.
SPE-170934-MS 11

Reducing non-productive zones

In the short term, improving stimulation efficiency
can be achieved by reducing non-productive perfo-
ration clusters. A recent case study from Wolfcamp
was documented by Brown et al (2013). Natural
fractures were identified based on borehole image
logs as presented as tadpole plots in Figure 14 (see
tracks 8-10). The natural fracture data was used in
the well completion design. It was known that the
formation in the area has high stress mostly which
have been proven difficult to initiate a hydraulic
fracture in without natural fracture present. With
natural fractures interpreted in the majority of the
zones, perforation clusters and stages have been Figure 14 —Wolfcamp case study showing natural fracture data being
used in a successful well completion in a lateral with overall high stress.
placed in the fractured zones to aid in initiating the
hydraulic fractures. On the other hand, intervals without natural fractures were avoided for placing perf
clusters, i.e. in the zones between stages 2 and 3 as well as stages 3 and 4. A successful completion with
much improved stimulation efficiency was achieved.

Promoting fracturing network complexity

Optimum production in shales depends on establishing the largest possible contact area between the shale
and fracture system for the economic investment (King, 2010). For longer term benefits, stimulation
efficiency enhancement, it is important to promote fracture network complexity, thus allowing more rock
to be stimulated and allowing for a longer period of production. To generate high level fracturing
complexity, it is necessary to start from the wellbore with many larger natural fractures to form feeder
system. Without much doubt, it is critical to understand the interaction between hydraulic fractures and
natural fractures.
Ventura et al (2013) concluded from the Barnet shale study) that natural fractures in the Barnett Shale
can be reactivated during hydraulic fracture treatments, providing a larger rock volume in contact with the
wellbore than would be the case with a single hydraulic fracture. The natural fracture system must
therefore be characterized, and in-situ stress must be determined for hydraulic-fracture treatments to be
optimized. In the case of the Barnett Shale, microseismic monitoring (Fisher et al., 2004; Warpinski et al.,
2005) has shown that the hydraulic fractures stimulate the closed natural fractures to essentially open
them. It is known that the fracture-host boundary in the Barnett Shale fractures is weak because
fracture-cement fills in the cores are commonly parted from the wall rock. Thus, when natural fractures
are encountered, they are opened up to fluids, and they provide a network connected to the wellbore.
Natural fractures in this scenario are advantageous to optimal stimulation of the well (Ventura et al, 2013).
Gale (2008) also pointed out that natural fractures, even closed, offer a plane of weakness in the rock.
In intervals with closed fractures, breakdown pressures measured at 50% of the initial breakdown of
non-naturally fractured rock were observed (Gale, 2008). Suarez-Rivera et al (2013) (see Figure 15)
concluded that hydraulic fracture propagation can be controlled by in-situ stress anisotropy and rock
fabrics like existing natural fractures and/or bedding. In the case of no horizontal stress contrast, or ␴Hmax
is parallel to existing natural fracture’s strike, hydraulic fracture will be developed along the natural
fracture orientation (Figure 15 - B & C). In case there is high horizontal stress contrast where ␴Hmax is
normal or has an acute angle to the natural fracture strike (Fig.15 – A and D), then complex hydraulic
fracture network will develop. A real large size rock block testing example is shown in Figure 16
(Suarez-Rivera, 2013) to prove the existing fabrics in the rock have strong impact in directing fracture
growth.
12 SPE-170934-MS

A subsurface case study on how natural fractures

dominated the hydraulic facture growth was vali-
dated by micro-seismic data presented by William-
Stroud (2010). Figure 17 shows that the in-situ
␴Hmax is defined as E-W for the studied field area
using borehole image data (Fig. 17-A). The natural
fractures have a strike at NW-SE. A discrete frac-
ture network was generated using the in-situ stress
and natural fracture data (see Fig. 17-B). Figure
17-C provides the actual micro-seismic event plots
indicating a strong NW-SE oriented hydraulic frac-
ture network developed during the stimulation. The
micro-seismic event plot confirms that the hydraulic
fracture growth was strongly controlled by natural
fractures in this case.
Figure 15—Fracture propagation on different medium. A- left above, B
A second subsurface case study from Eagle Ford – right above, C – left below and D – right below.
is given by Miller et al (2013). In this example,
natural fractures, a fault and transverse induced
fractures were interpreted based on microresistivity
images as presented in Figure 18. The microseismic
indicated a complex hydraulic fracture network in
the NW toe section of the wellbore. The dominant
natural fractures had an off angular relationship to
the interpreted NE-SW ␴Hmax. The micro-seismic
event plot gave a good validation of the predicted
complexity of hydraulic fractures in the toe zone by
having much wider distribution. In other parts of the
wellbore the micro-seismic events had a much nar-
rower microseismic event distribution.
Natural Fracture Impact on Figure 16 —Hydraulic fracture propagation in a real rock block test.
The testing configuration simulates a horizontal completion. Bedding
Production oriented parallel to the wellbore and perpendicular to the maximum
stress (red arrow).The minimum stress is oriented parallel to the well-
Open, orthogonal or multiple sets of natural frac- bore. The primary fracture is oriented to the maximum stress. Second-
tures increase the productivity of gas shale reser- ary branches are observed in the orientation along the rock fabrics.

voirs due to the extremely low matrix permeability of shales[8]. Finding these natural fracture systems are
critical to commercial production of natural gas and is considered one of the primary exploration
strategies. Identification and characterization of natural fractures is typically done either at the surface
through outcrop studies, through seismic interpretation, or in-situ through the use of geophysical logs or
core. In addition, indications of natural fractures are often associated with natural gas shows while drilling
a well, especially on air or under-balanced.
It is well-known in the oil and gas industry that natural fractures, either open or prone to opening during
hydraulic fracturing, greatly improve hydrocarbon production in shale reservoirs (Ciezobka et al, 2013).
However, fractures are often uniformly distributed. Therefore, it is important to gain insight into natural
fractures occurrence and distribution before designing the fracturing program and then positively identify
natural fracture clusters along the horizontal wellbore in real time and optimize hydraulic fracturing
parameters in real time.
SPE-170934-MS 13

Marcellus case study

In the Marcellus Formation, gas can be produced
only when extensive networks of natural fractures
exist due to the fact that its matrix permeability is so
low (Engelder et al, 2009; Kaufman et al, 2013). In
areas where fracturing is sufficient to promote pro-
duction, the gas basically will flow the short dis-
tance from storage in the tight rock matrix to the
fracture network and then through the fracture net-
work to the producing well. Only minute quantities
of gas flow directly from the rock to the well. These
production characteristics make shale gas reservoirs
examples of so-called dual porosity behavior.
Perhaps one of the earliest hints showing the
impact of natural fractures on production in the
Marcellus were the blowouts that occurred when Figure 17—Subsurface case example of (Modified from William-Stroud,
wells penetrated the Marcellus to exploit the gas 2010).
found in the deeper Devonian Oriskany Sandstone
of the Appalachian Basin (Bradley and Pepper,
1938). A notable example is the April 3, 1940,
Crandall Farm blowout near Independence, New
York, where gas production reached 60 mmcf dur-
ing the first eight days of uncontrolled flow from the
upper part of the Marcellus Formation at a depth of
4800 ft (1463 m) (Taylor, 2009). It was interpreted
that the blowout was caused by self-sourced joints
within the Marcellus Shale because the well was an
unstimulated vertical hole without seeing any evi-
dence of faulting that could have tapped gas from
the Oriskany some 120 ft (36 m) below. Since then
blowouts were a common consequence of drilling
vertical wells penetrating the Marcellus in the fol-
lowing half century. Those blowouts were likely Figure 18 —Case study from US shale showing that the predicted hy-
related to the interconnected natural fractures in the draulic fracture network complexity based on natural fracture and
in-situ stress data interpreted from borehole images is validated by
subsurface. microseismic data acquired during stimulation (Miller et al, 2013).
Although both J1 and J2 joints in black shale are
natural fractures, their impacts on engineering completions seem different. First, the open joints subjected
to lower normal stress will be more permeable. The least horizontal normal stress, ␴hmin, in the
Appalachian Basin is nearly perpendicular to J1 joints, meaning that, all other things being equal,
stress-controlled permeability favors J1 joints over J2 joints. This may also explain the unstimulated
production from horizontal wells in the Huron black shale of Kentucky. Second, J1 joints are better
developed and more closely spaced than J2 joints in organic-rich rocks (Loewy, 1995; Lash et al., 2004).
Thus, the black shale will exhibit greater bulk permeability in the J1 direction.
These observations are exploited by operators active in the Marcellus. In vertical Marcellus wells, the
completion may involve large hydraulic fracture treatments. Induced hydraulic fractures will propagate
east-northeast–west-southwest, the direction of ␴Hmax of the stress field (Evans et al., 1989). Hydraulic
fractures propagating in this direction may travel along J1 joints to intersect J2 joints. In this case, the
major drainage path to the well is first along J2 joints and then along the east-northeast–trending hydraulic
14 SPE-170934-MS

Figure 19 —Case study from Marcellus shale showing much higher productivity from naturally fractured zones interpreted based on fracturing
length/width ratio per stage using microseismic data (Modified from Ciezobka et al, 2013).

Figure 20 —Eagle Ford case study showing that the most productive clusters in the lateral are all related to high density of natural fractures identified
on borehole image logs (Modified from Offenberger et al, 2013). Plot A (above) – the natural fracture steronet plot summarizing a dominant NE-SW
set with 775 fractures and a minor NW-SE set with 175 fractures. Plot B (below): Track A-GR; Track 2 – Depth in ft.; Tracks 3&4 – Neutron, Bulk
Density and DT Sonic logs; Track 5 – fracture (red, blue and yellow) and bedding (green) tadpole plot; Track 6 – Total gas; Track 7 – Production
by cluster; and Track 8 - Cumulative production.

fracture, which may or may not have propagated along pre-folding J1 joints. By intersecting J2 joints,
hydraulic fracture treatments in vertical wells are capable of taking advantage of neither the bulk
permeability anisotropy of black shale nor the normal-stress induced permeability anisotropy of J1 vs. J2
joints (Engelder et al, 2009). In horizontal wells, hydraulic fractures will propagate in the direction of
␴Hmax, which is parallel to J1 joints. The likely outcome of a hydraulic fracture treatment in a horizontal
well drilled to the WNW, for example, is the reopening of J1 instead of the fracturing of intact black shale.
SPE-170934-MS 15

Hence, horizontal drilling in Devonian black shale should be directed to the NNW, perpendi-cular to
␴Hmax of the stress field, to benefit from both the bulk permeability anisotropy from joint development and
the normal- stress-induced permeability anisotropy of these rocks.
Another Marcellus Case Study
Ciezobka (et al, 2013) presented an additional example from Marcellus shale. It shows that much better
production came from the zones interpreted to have natural fractures based on micro-seismic event counts
and enhanced width to length ratio of stimulated rock (Fig. 19).
Eagle Ford Case Study
Offenberger (2013) presented a case study on natural fractures improving hydrocarbon production. A total
of 775 natural fractures were interpreted from image logs in the lateral drilled within Eagle Ford with
dominant fracture set striking NE-SW and minor set at NW-SE (Fig.20-A). Natural fracture distribution
along the wellbore is plotted in Figure 20-B. Production data by cluster (track 6 in Fig. 20-B) indicated
that the most productive clusters are all located in the highly fractured intervals (see tracks 4 and 6). The
example provides strong proof that natural fractures truly enhance hydrocarbon production once they are
connected to the wellbore through the hydraulic fractures.

Conclusion
Six current active shale plays including Eagle Ford, Bakken, Marcellus, Permian, Woodford and Niobrara
from US are reviewed in this study in terms of natural fracture characterization and based on available
documented case studies published in the last 20 years. The collected evidence for natural fractures mainly
from outcrop and subsurface image logs for each shale indicated that all those shales are naturally
fractured. However, fracture characterization (i.e. intensity, open vs. healed, single vs. multiple sets,
orientation, etc.) seems varied from one shale to another. Even within the same shale play, the nature of
the natural fractures can be varied, in particular the fracture intensity, from one field to another or within
the same lateral. Thus, it is critical to have accurate fracture data in the laterals to help optimizing
completions.
Natural fractures have a considerable impact on well completions and productivity. Open fractures
enhance both RQ and CQ while closed or healed fractures might improve CQ only. All fracture/fault data
should be part of the inputs for completion design. Hydraulic fracture network complexity can be also
strongly controlled by natural fractures which were proved both by laboratory tests and subsurface
microseismic data highlighted in this paper. Stimulation efficiency can be improved with better under-
standing of the natural fracture distribution along the wellbore.
Natural fractures have a positive impact on production if they are open and well-connected to wellbore
by hydraulic fractures. However, for those reservoirs having concerns about water production due to
potential connection to the nearby water zones through major faults, cautions have to be taken to avoid
placing perforation clusters too close to those potential water connectors. Knowing the fault locations
from seismic data as we as sub-seismic faults along the wellbore from well logs is critical.
In general, natural fracture evaluation has been underutilized in the majority of shale well completions
in the US to date. With proven impact for many aspects in the stimulation business, there are considerable
potential opportunities for operators to reconsider their development strategies on how to characterize and
then make a better use of the existing natural fractures. The long term investment return can be improved
if we will be able to use our limited resources to make effective connections among the already existing
natural fracture systems. More informed completion decisions can be made utilizing knowledge of the
natural fracture characteristics and location in horizontal wells.

Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Schlumberger for supporting this review paper. Internal reviewers –
16 SPE-170934-MS

Richard Reischman, Carlos Maeso, Chuck Catchings and external reviewer Paul McKay are thanked for
their technical reviewing of this manuscript. In addition the author would like to thank his many
co-workers and other external friends for their information and discussions.

References
Arguio, A. L., Morford, L., Baihly, Aviles, I., Streamlined completions process: an Eagle Ford shale
case history. 2012, SPE 162658, pp. 1–17.
Arthur, J. D., Bohm, B., Cornue, D., Environmental considerations of modern shale gas development,
SPE ATCE 2009, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 4-7 Oct 2009, pp 1–12.
Brown, R., Honeyman, L., Fisher, Kelvin, Wisebaker, A., Sharma, A.K. and Brooks, G., New MWD,
LWD Services help drillers keep bit in formations sweet spot, The American Oil & Gas Reporter, Nov
2013.
Browning, I. B., 1935, Relation of structure to shale gas accumulation: Devonian shales—a sympo-
sium by the Appalachian Geological Society: Charleston, West Virginia, Appalachian Geological Society,
p. 16 –20.
Cardott, B.J.: “Overview of the Woodford gas Shale Play in Oklahoma”, presented at the Woodford
gas Shale Conference, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 23 May 2007 Available at: http://www.ogs.ou.edu/
pdf/WoodfordOverview.pdf.
Carlson, E.S., and Mercer, J.C., Devonian Shale Gas Production: Mechanisms and Simple Models,
JPT, Jan. 10, 1991 (SPE #19311).
Chen, Y.H., Omeragic, d., Habashy, T., Bloemenkamp, R., Zhang, T., Cheung, P., and Laronga, R.,
INVERSION-BASED WORKFLOW FOR QUANTITATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW-
GENERATION OIL-BASED MUD RESISTIVITY IMAGER, SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Sympo-
sium held in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, May 18-22, 2014.
Chen, Y.H., Miller, B., Wickstrom, C., Matson, S., Faults identified on borehole images logs and their
impact on horizontal well completion design, presented at AAPG Mid Continent Section Meeting, Oct 12,
2013.
Ciezobka, J. and Salehi, I., Controlled hydraulic fracturing of naturally fractured shales - a case study
in the Marcellus shale examining how to identify and exploit natural fractures, SPE #164524.
Clark, W. B. (1918). The geography of Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey. vol. 10. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins Press.
Colorodo Dept of Natural Resources, Colorado’s New Oil Boom — the Niobrara, RockTalk magazine,
Volume 13, Number 1 Spring 2011. Available at: http://geosurvey.state.co.us/pubs/Documents/
rtv13n1%204-15-11%20B.pdf
Dawson, W. C., and W. R. Almon, 2010. Eagle Ford Shale variability: Sedimentologic influences on
source and reservoir character in an unconventional resource unit: Gulf Coast Association of Geological
Societies Transactions, v. 60, p. 181–190.
Dershowitz W. and Doe, T.W., Modeling Complexities Of Natural Fracturing Key In Gas Shales,
American Oil & Gas Reporter, August 2011.
Donovan, A.D., et alet al, A 3-D outcrop perspective of an unconventionl carbonate reservori, 2013,
SPE #168783.
Drillinginfo., The Midland Basin Wolfcamp/Cline Shale Horizontal Oil Play, Mar 2014. Available:
http://info.drillinginfo.com/wolfcamp-cline-shale-play/
EIA, Natural gas year-in-review 2007, 2008, March. Available: http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/
natural_gas/feature_articles/2008/ngyir2007/ngyir2007.pdf
Engelder, T., Lash, G.G., and Uzcátegui, R.S., Joint sets that enhance production from Middle and
Upper Devonian gas shales of the Appalachian Basin, AAPG Bulletin, v. 93, No.7 (July 2009), pp.
857–889.
SPE-170934-MS 17

Fisher, M.K., Heinze, J.R., Harris, J.R., Davidson, B.M., Wright, C.A., and Dunn, K.P., Optimizing
Horizontal Completion Techniques in the Barnett Shale Using Microseismic Fracture Mapping, 2004,
SPE #90051.
Friedrich M. and Milliken, M., Determining the Contributing Reservoir Volume from Hydraulically
Fractured Horizontal Wells in the Wolfcamp Formation in the Midland Basin, SPE #168839, 2013.
Gale, J.F., Natural Fractures in Shales: Origins, Characteristics and Relevance for Hydraulic Fracture
Treatments, Search and Discovery Article #40338 (2008), AAPG Annual Meeting San Antonio, April
2008.
Gale, J.F.W., Reed, R.M., and Holder, J., Natural fractures in the Barnett Shale and their importance
for hydraulic fracture treatments. AAPG Bulletin, v. 91, no. 4 (April 2007), pp. 603–622.
Han, G., Natural Fractures in Unconventional Reservoir Rocks: Identification, Characterization, and
its Impact to Engineering Design, American Rock Mechanics Association, 45th US Rock Mechanics /
Geomechanics Symposium held in San Francisco, CA, June 26 –29, 2011.
Hategan, F., Hawkes, R.V., Well production performance analysis for unconventional shale gas
reservoirs: a conventional approach, 2012.
Hemmesch, N.T., Harris, N.B., Mnich, C.A. and Selby, D., A sequence-stratigraphic framework for
the Upper Devonian Woodford Shale, Permian Basin, west Texas, AAPG Bulletin, v. 98, no. 1 (January
2014), pp. 23–47.
Hentz, T.F., and Ruppel, S.C., Regional stratigraphic and rock characteritics of Eagle Ford shale in
its play area: Maverick Basin to East Texas Basin, AAPG Search and Discovery article #10325, 2011.
Johnson, R.L., Walters, W.W., Conway, M.W., Burdett, B.S., Stanley, R.G., C02 Energized and
Remedial 100% C02 Treatments Improve Productivity in Wolfcamp Intervals, Val Verde Basin, West
Texas, SPE #39778.
Kanneganti, K.T., Oussoltsev, D., Grant, D., Ball, N., Offenberger, R.M., Application of Reservoir-
Centric Stimulation Design Tool in Completion Optimization for Eagle Ford Shale, SPE #164526, 2013.
Kaufman, P., Atwood, K., Forrest, G., Walker, K., Wutherich, K., Delozier, D., Perakis, A., Borchardt,
S., Hauser, K., Marcellus Shale gas asset optimization driven by technology integration, SPE 164345,
2013.
Kear, R. and Glaser, K.S., Eagle Ford field trip note (unpublished), Nov 2013.
King, G.E., Thirty years of gas shale fracturing: what have we learned, SPE #133456, 2010.
Lash, G., S. Loewy, and T. Engelder, 2004, Preferential jointing of Upper Devonian black shale,
Appalachian Plateau, U.S.A.: Evidence supporting hydrocarbon generation as a joint-driving mechanism:
Geological Society Special Publications 231, p. 129 –151.
Li, F., Martin, R., Thompson, J., Atwood K., Robinson, ., Lindsay, G., An integrated approach for
understanding oil and gas reserves potential in EagleFord Shale formtion, CSUG/SPE #148751, 2011,
pp. 1–12.
Loewy, S. L., 1995, The post-Alleghanian tectonic history of the Appalachian Basin based on joint
patterns in Devonian black shales: M.S. thesis, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Penn-
sylvania, 179 p.
Lohoefer, D., Snyder, D., Seale, R., Themig, D., Comparative study of cemented versus uncemented
multi-stage fractured wells in the Barnett Shale, SPE # 135386, 2010.
Mayhood, K., (2008-03-11). “Low down, rich and stingy”. The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved
04-04-2008.
Meng, C., Pater, C.J.D., Hydraulic fracture propagation in pre-fractured natural rocks, SPE #140429,
2011.
Meyer, B., Bazan, L.W., Brown, E.K., Brinzer, B.C., Key parameters affecting successful hydraulic
fracture design and optimized production in unconventional wells, SPE 165702, 2013.
Miller, C., Hamilton, D., Sturm, S., Waters, G., Taylor, T., Calvez, J.L., Singh, M., Evaluating the
18 SPE-170934-MS

impact of mineralogy, natural fractures and in situ stresses on hydraulically induced fracture system
geometry in horizontal shale wells, SPE 163878, 2013.
Mohan, K., Scott, K.D., Monson, G.D., and Leonard, P.A., A Systematic Approach to Understanding
Well Performance in Unconventional Reservoirs: A Wolfcamp Case Study, UrTec #1579514, 2013.
Mokhtari, M., Bui, B.T., Tutuncu, A.N., Tensile failure of shales: impacts of layering and natural
fractures, SPE 169520-MS, 2014
Moncada, K., Atwood, K., Altman, R., Malpani, R., Indriati, S. and Clayton, R., Resolving Production
Trends in Shale Reservoirs—An Eagle Ford Case Study from Localized Reservoir Characterization to
Basin Understanding. SPE #168902, 2013.
Morsy, S., Sheng, J.J., Soliman, M.Y., Improving hydraulic fracturing of shale formations by
acidizing, SPE #165688, 2013.
Mullen, M., Pitcher, J., and Hinz, D., Evertz, M., Dunbar, D., Carlstrom, G., and Brenize, G., Does
the presence of natural fractures have an impact on production? A case study from the middle Bakken
Dolomite, North Dakota, SPE #135319, 2010.
Offenberger, R., Ball, N., Kanneganti, K., Oussoltsev, D., Integration of Natural and Hydraulic
Fracture Network Modeling with Reservoir Simulation for an Eagle Ford Well, 2013, SPE 168683.
Olsen, T.N., Gomez, E., McCrady, D., Forrest, G., Perakis, A., Kaufman, P., Stimulation results and
completion implications from the consortium multi-well project in the North Dakota Bakken Shale, SPE
#124686, 2009.
Olson, J., and Dahi-Taleghani, A., The Influence of Natural Fractures on Hydraulic Fracture
Propagation, AAPG Search & discovery article #40583(2010).
Pollastro, R. M., Natural fractures, composition, cyclicity, and diagenesis of the Upper Cretaceous
Niobrara Formation, Berthoud Field, Colorado. The Mountain Geologist, v. 47, no. 4, p. 135–149.
www.rmag.org., 2013
Pommer, L., Gale, J.F.W., Eichhubl, P., Fall, A., Laubach, S.E., Using Structural Diagenesis to Infer
the Timing of Natural Fractures in the Marcellus Shale, SPE# 168770 / URTeC, 2013, #1580135.
Railroad Commission of Texas, Monthly summary of Texas natural gas Oct 2011. Available at:
http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/media/8525/gasmonthlysummary2011-10.pdf
Shelley, R.F., Mullen, M.J., Minner, W.A., A North American Review of Commercial Shale Plays;
Have We Learned Anything Besides Serendipity? SPE 166229, 2013.
Sieminski, A., IAEE/AEA presentation on US oil and gas production, Jan 2014. Available at:
http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_01042014.pdf
Slocombe, R., Acock, A., Fisher, K., Viswanathan, A., Chadwick, C., Reischman, R. and Wigger, E.,
Eagle Ford Completion Optimization Using Horizontal Log Data, 2013, SPE #166242.
Smith, E. C., S. P. Cremean, and G. Kozair, 1979, Gas occurrence in the Devonian shale: Symposium
on Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs, Denver, Colorado, May 20 –22, Society of Petroleum Engineers
Paper No. 7921, p. 99 –108.
Snyder, D., Seale, R., Comparison of production results from open hole and cemented multistage
completions in the Marcellus shale, SPE #155095, 2012.
Stegent, N., Wagner, A., Mullen, J., and Borstmayer, R. (2010). Engineering a successful fracture-
stimulation treatmet in Eagle Ford shale, SPE # 136183.
Sturm, S.D., and Gomez, E., Role of natural fracturing in production from the Bakken Formation,
Williston Basin, North Dakota, AAPG Search and Discovery Article #50199 (2009).
Suarez-Rivera, R., Behrmann, L., Green, S., Burghardt, J., Stanchits, S., Edelman, E., and Surdi, A.,
Defining three regions of hydraulic fracture connectivity, in unconventional reservoirs, help designing
completions with improved long-term productivity, SPE #166505, 2013.
Suarez-Rivera, R., Burghardt, J., Stanchits, S., Edelman, E. and Surdi, A., Understanding the effect of
SPE-170934-MS 19

rock fabric on fracture complexity for improving completion design and well performance, IPTC #17018,
2013.
Suarez-Rivera, R., Deenadayalu, C., Chertov, M., Hartanto, R.N., Gathogo, P. and Kunjir, R.,
Improving horizntal completions on heterogeneous tight shales, SPE/CSUG #146998, 2011.
Taylor, K., Mudstones and Shale gas research, 2014. Available: http://www.seaes.manchester.ac.uk/
our-research/researchgroups/basinstudiesandpetroleumgeoscience/researchthemes/mudstonesandshale-
gasresearch
Taylor, R.G., 2009, Oil, oil and more oil: http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ny/county/allegany/OIL-
COUNTY/OIL-OILMORE%20OIL.htm (accessed January 31, 2009).
Theloy, C. and Sonnenberg, S.A., Integrating Geology and Engineering: Implications for Production
in the Bakken Play, Williston Basin, 2013, SPE # 168870.
Ventura, J., Walker, R., Zagorski, W., Davis, G., Applegath, J., Curry, M., Pitzarella, M., Frantz J.,
Robinson, D., Degner, D., Middlebrook, M., Tullis, A., The Discovery of the Marcellus, Shale Play, An
Operator’s Experience, SPE 168824 / URTeC 1581936, 2013.
Vulgamore, T., Clawson, T., Pope, C., and Wolhart, S., et alet al, Applying hydraulic fracture
diagnostics to optimize stimulations in the Woodfoord Shale, SPE #110029, 2007.
Walker, K.J., Wutherich, K., Terry, I., Shreves, J.E. and Caplan, J., Improving Production in the
Marcellus Shale Using an Engineered Completion Design: A Case Study, 2012, SPE #159666-MS.
Warlick, D., WarlickEnergy, 7 shale plays currently driving US drilling and development, Aug, 2012.
Available at: http://www.ogfj.com/articles/print/volume-9/issue-8/features/7-shale-plays-currently-
driving.html
WellServicingMagazine, Are Permian Shales the next big thing? 2014. Available: http://
www.wellservicingmagazine.com/featured-articles/2013/03/are-permian-shales-the-next-big-thing/
West, D. R. M., Harkrider, J., Besler, M.R., Barham, M., Mahrer, K.D., Optimized Production in the
Bakken Shale: South Antelope Case Study, SPE#167168, 2013.
Williams-Stroud, S., Kilpatrick, J.E., Eisner, L., Cornette, B.M., Natural fracture characterization
from microseismic source mechanisms: a comparison with FMI data, CSUG/SPE 138107, 2010.
1. New York’s oil and natural gas history - a long story, but not the final chapter, available at:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/nyserda2.pdf
2. Wikipedia, Shale gas in the United States, Sept 2011. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Shale_gas_in_the_United_States#Shale_gas_production
3. Oil and Gas History of Kentucky: 1900 to Present, available at: http://www.uky.edu/KGS/
emsweb/history/modern.htm
4. Marcellus Formation, July, 2014, Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellus_Formation
5. Schlumbberger Case Study - Most productive zones of Niobrara Formation targeted after expert
log and real-time data interpretation, 2013. Available at: http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/dcs/
case_studies/niobrara_formation_unconventional_services_cs.pdf
6. UOGR Report, Niobrara. Available at: http://www.ogj.com/unconventional-resources/niobrara-
shale.html
7. Colorodo Dept of Natural Resources, Colorado’s New Oil Boom — the Niobrara, RockTalk
magazine, Volume 13, Number 1 Spring 2011. Available at: http://geosurvey.state.co.us/pubs/
Documents/rtv13n1%204-15-11%20B.pdf
8. HILL, D.G., LOMBARDI, T.E. and MARTIN, J.P., FRACTURED SHALE GAS POTENTIAL IN
NEW YORK. Available at: http://treichlerlawoffice.com/radiation/HillNY.pdf.