SPE 134772

Using Microseismic Source Parameters to Evaluate the Influence

of Faults on Fracture Treatments - A Geophysical Approach
to Interpretation
R. C. Downie, SPE, Schlumberger; E. Kronenberger, SPE, Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc.; S. C. Maxwell,
Schlumberger

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 19–22 September 2010.

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

Microseismic monitoring during hydraulic fracturing treatments has confirmed that hydraulic fractures are
much more complex than might have been assumed even a few years ago, when conventional fracture
models were considered adequate. Analysis of diagnostic pump-in tests and mining tunnels has shown
that fracture complexity exists in both the near-wellbore and far-field regions of the fracture. Also,
microseismic monitoring and interpretation have shown that even fractures initiated in the same wellbore
during successive stages can have distinctly different characteristics.

Evaluating the effectiveness of hydraulic fracture treatments using microseismic events is challenging.
The most common techniques attempt to correlate production with the dimensions of the microseismic
clouds and volume estimates based on the density of microseismic events.

Geophysical interpretation has shown that microseismic activity recorded during fracturing treatments can
sometimes be associated with existing geological structures such as faults. It is possible to examine the
frequency of the microseismic event magnitudes during a fracturing treatment and determine if
microseismic events are being produced by the failure of the existing rock fabric, or activation of existing
geologic structural features, which might be detrimental to well performance. The resulting frequency-
magnitude distributions can then be correlated to observed fracture geometries.

We show that it is possible to use microseismic magnitude to identify whether faults are influencing the
observed dimensions of the microseismic event cloud. We also show that it is possible to use
microseismic magnitude values to evaluate fracture behavior in real-time applications, allowing
stimulation engineers to modify individual stage treatment designs as the specific situation dictates. The
potential benefits to both stimulation cost and production results will also be discussed.

Introduction

Microseismic monitoring is a powerful tool used to monitor fracture geometry during hydraulic fracture
stimulation treatments. Interpretation of the microseismic events is usually based on the geological
location of microseismic events, the orientation of the microseismic event clouds with respect to the well,
2 SPE 134772

the dimensions of the microseismic cloud, and the timing and frequency at which those events occur.
Other geophysical attributes of the microseismic events, such as the event strength or magnitude
(Maxwell et al, 2006), offer additional information about the fracturing treatment. Microseismic magnitudes
can be used for quality control purposes to assess if the entire fracture network was detected of if the
fractures have extended beyond the observational distance limits; remove the spatial bias associated with
recording numerous, low-magnitude events close to the observation well; fault identification; and also
examine the density of the microseismicity. Similar to tectonic earthquakes, magnitudes can be computed
on various scales such as the well-known Richter magnitude: although herein we use the more robust
moment magnitude scale using seismic moments estimated from the low frequency plateau of the
displacement frequency spectra (Maxwell et al., 2006).

Identifying and mapping faults that can be identified through analysis of seismic data is an important part
of the well planning, drilling, and completion processes. Faults can cause drilling failures up to and
including loss of the wellbore. Faults can also be a conduit between productive hydrocarbon zones and
water zones in reservoirs where stimulation treatments are otherwise well contained against growth into
water-bearing zones. Interpretation of surface seismic reflections cannot identify all of the faults that
might be present, and there is always a risk that faults with dimensions that are below the resolution limit
of seismic data might be present.

The presence of previously unidentified faults is sometimes revealed by microseismic monitoring of

stimulation treatments. Relatively large magnitude microseismic activity that takes place for an extended
period of time after fracturing operations have been completed has been interpreted as deformation
induced by fracturing operations along nearby faults. Figure 1 is an example of microseismic activity from
a hydraulic fracture that results in activation of a known fault.

Figure 1. Post-treatment microseismic activity along a known fault plane (after Maxwell et al., 2009)
SPE 134772 3

Figure 2 is a plot of the cumulative microseismic moment of the events detected during and after the
treatment. The shaded area indicates the time at which fracturing operations were underway. Increased
microseismic activity after the treatment was finished results in an increase in the cumulative moment of
the observed events.

Figure 2. Cumulative microseismic moment computed from the microseismic events shown in Figure 1
(after Maxwell et al., 2009).

Microseismic events associated with faults have also been identified by their relatively high magnitudes
compared to microseismic events that occur while fracturing. This is sometimes seen when plotting
magnitude versus distance data. Figure 3 is a sample of microseismic event data from a number of
projects illustrating this observation.

Figure 3. Microseismic activity associated with fault deformation as seen in magnitude versus distance data.
(after Warpinski, 2009).
4 SPE 134772

The previous examples are cases where the presence of faults was interpreted following the conclusion
of pumping or through examination of large volumes of data. Such indices of possible fault deformation
are useful for evaluation of the stimulation treatments but can be difficult to apply while a completion is in
progress.

Failure to diagnose microseismic events resulting from fault deformation can affect the interpretation of
fracture geometry. Fracture dimensions, interpretation of stimulation effectiveness, and erroneous
identification of fracture azimuth might result in incorrect recommendations for subsequent drilling and
completion designs.

In this paper the authors will examine a case history where microseismic activity produced by fault
deformation was identified after the final stage of a multiple stage completion in a horizontal well. The
example used will show that it is possible to use the geophysical properties of microseismic events
detected during a fracture treatment is in progress to identify fault deformation using analytical tools
developed by earthquake seismologists.

Frequency-Magnitude Analysis

Microseismic monitoring has its roots in earthquake seismology, and various relationships that exist in
earthquake data are also present in microseismic data. Naturally occurring earthquakes follow a pattern
where successively smaller magnitude earthquakes occur more frequently than larger earthquakes. The
Gutenberg-Richter relationship describes the statistical relationship:

Log N = a – bM (1)

N is the number of earthquakes with a magnitude greater than or equal to M. The terms a, and b are
constants. The value of b for historical earthquake data, regardless of the region of the world or time
period for the sample, is approximately 1 (after S. Stein and M. Wysession, “An Introduction to
Seismology, Earthquakes, and Earth Structure”, 2003, Blackwell Publishing).

In certain cases, the b-values have been found to deviate from a value of 1, including earthquake
swarms, volcanic activity, and hydraulic fracturing where a b-value is observed closer to a value of 2.
The b-value can be determined using the maximum likelihood estimate:

b = 1/2.3(Mav – Mmin) (2)

Mav is the average magnitude of the microseismic events, and Mmin is the minimum magnitude value
within the data set.

Figure 4 is a plot of the magnitude and frequency of microseismic events displayed previously in Figures
1. The events have been separated into two sets to distinguish between events that occurred during the
fracturing treatment and events that occurred after the conclusion of pumping operations. The
corresponding b-values of the treatment and post-treatment events are also shown. The events recorded
during the fracturing treatment have a b-value of 2, while events associated with fault deformation have a
b-value of 1. While other microseismic attributes can also be used to identify fault activation, the use of
magnitude and the frequency-magnitude relationship is a convenient means using readily available data.
SPE 134772 5

Figure 4. Frequency-magnitude histogram and associated b-value of microseismic events occurring during and after
fracturing in the example shown in Figure 1(after Maxwell et al., 2009).

Case History

Evaluation and Interpretation of Microseismic Data.

The following case history of a 7-stage fracturing treatment in a horizontal Barnett Shale well illustrates
that frequency-magnitude analysis can be used to identify fault-related microseismic activity while
fracturing. The objective of the project was to monitor fracture height growth in real time and reduce
make adjustments to the stimulation treatments if downward growth into water-bearing layers was
observed.

The well was drilled north to south due to lease boundary restrictions and it was expected that the
hydraulic fractures would initiate and extend at an angle of about 45 degrees with respect to the wellbore.
The location of the well and length of the lateral were selected to avoid known faults located north of the
well’s surface location and south of the location of the toe of the well. The stimulation treatments were
pumped through casing that had been cemented in place. Each stage was perforated and fractured
using bridge plugs in the casing for isolation. All stages followed the same pumping schedule with similar
volumes of fluid and proppant pumped during each stage. The monitoring well crosses above the
treatment well but had not yet been completed.

The location of the microseismic monitoring tools in this example was advantageous since the monitoring
distances are not extreme. A view of the treatment and monitoring wells with distances to each perforated
section is provided in Figure 5.
6 SPE 134772

Figure 5. Location of treatment and monitor wells with approximate monitoring distances. Grid size is 600’.

The microseismic event locations used in this case history were calculated using a real-time automated
process.

The microseismic data has been normalized using magnitude values to minimize the effects of spatial
distortion prior to performing the evaluation of the microseismic dimensions. This step is necessary to
compensate for spatial distortion that might be introduced by the reduction of the ability to detect weaker
events as the distance to the monitoring tools increases. Normalization is achieved by temporarily
disabling events whose magnitude is less than the minimum value that can be detected at most
distances. The magnitude versus distance plot of the field-processed data is shown in Figure 6. A
cluster of microseismic events with higher magnitudes than had previously been observed can be seen
during in the events from stage 7 of the completion.

Figure 6. Magnitude versus distance data.

SPE 134772 7

For this example the computed local moment-magnitude values ranged from approximately -3.0 to -0.
Events with magnitude values less than -2.7 were temporarily disabled to produce a consistent
distribution of values for all seven stages of the completion. A summary map view of the event data used
for evaluation of microseismic dimensions and interpretation of fracture geometry is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Microseismic events after normalizing using magnitude to minimize spatial distortion. Grid size is 600’.

Differences in the interpreted fracture length from different stages were noted while evaluating the
microseismic data. Since the pumping rates and total volumes of fluid pumped were similar for all stages,
the changes in fracture length were attributed to changes in rock mechanical and reservoir properties.
Asymmetric fracture extension with respect to the wellbore was also observed. The asymmetry was
determined to be a valid estimate of fracture behavior and does not appear to be related to the monitoring
configuration. Notice that asymmetry is observed both towards and away from the observation well,
which is interesting since the monitoring bias is sometimes attributed to observed asymmetric growth
towards the observation well. A visual representation of interpreted microseismic fracture lengths is
contained in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Microseismic evaluation of hydraulic fracture total length for stages 1 through 7. Grid size is 600’.
8 SPE 134772

The depth that microseismic events occurred was generally within the reservoir layers during the first 6
stages of the completion. Microseismic activity indicating potential fracture height growth below the
reservoir layers was observed following the conclusion of stage 7. Microseismic activity persisted for an
extended period of time after the end of the stage 7 injection, compared to the previous stages.

The time and location of these post-treatment events appears to be related to deformation along a
previously unidentified fault plane located below the path of the treatment well. These events can also be
seen in the magnitude versus distance plot (Figure 6) as a series of relatively high magnitude events.
The presence of the fault near the final stage of completion resulted in increased microseismic event rate
and cumulative event count, and greater apparent fracture length than any of the other stimulation stages.
The fault extends below the reservoir zone into a known water-bearing zone. The location of the fault
was mapped using the post-treatment events and its position with respect to the Stage 7 perforations and
the treatment well is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Location and orientation of fault that extends into the water zone. The fault was identified by microseismic
monitoring. Grid size is 600’.

The hydraulic fracture initiated from the Stage 7 perforations intersects the fault plane. Contact with the
fault plane occurred while the treatment was in progress but was not recognized. The presence of the
fault was observed when microseismic events with comparatively high magnitude continued to be
detected after the conclusion of the designed pumping schedule. Figure 10 shows the events located
during and after the stimulation treatment.
SPE 134772 9

Figure 10. Stage 7 microseismic events and location of the fault plane that extends through the top of water zone. Grid size
is 600’.

Water was produced when the well was turned over to production. The source of the water is assumed to
be the fault identified following stage 7. Conventional wisdom suggests that greater fracture length is
beneficial to gas recovery, but in this case it is appears that increased fracture length is related to the
proximity of the fault and has been detrimental.

Three of first six stages of this completion also had comparatively long total microseismic length. This
observation raised concern that these three stages might also have been influenced by fault deformation,
although the evidence of possible faults was not immediately apparent when reviewing event locations,
magnitude versus distance data, or continuation of event generation after pumping. Frequency-
magnitude evaluation was proposed to determine if, and to what extent, apparent fracture length and
geometry might have been affected by the presence of faults.

Frequency-Magnitude Evaluation.

The procedure to determine the b-value of a series of microseismic events is straightforward. The data
can be displayed point-by-point as shown below or in the form of a cumulative event count histogram as
was displayed in Figure 1. Most if not all data sets will exhibit some deviation from the straight-line
relationship occurs as magnitude values decrease. Therefore, the minimum magnitude used to
determine b-value must be high enough to avoid this deviation. The next step is to calculate the
arithmetic average magnitude of the events whose magnitudes are greater than or equal to the minimum
value, and compute the b-value using Equation (2).

An example of frequency-magnitude evaluation has been presented in Figure 1. An effective means to

perform an evaluation of moment-magnitude values of microseismic events is demonstrated below.
Figure 11 is a plot of the magnitude values of the microseismic events located during Stage 7 of the
completion. Moment-magnitude values are plotted on the horizontal axis. The vertical axis is a
logarithmic plot of the number of events whose moment-magnitude is greater than or equal to a given
value. In this and subsequent examples, all microseismic events having magnitudes less than -2.7 were
disabled. This does not affect the results and aids usability by reducing the number of data points to be
plotted.
10 SPE 134772

Figure 11. Stage 7 frequency-magnitude plot and trend line.

The b-value is determined using equation (2). The minimum moment-magnitude value, Mmin, is chosen at
the upper left portion of the straight line section of the data. The average value of moment-magnitude,
Mavg, is the arithmetic average of all of the magnitude values that are equal to or greater than Mmin. This
results in a b-value value of approximately 1. A trend line has been added to Figure 11 for illustrative
purposes.

Stage 2 of the completion appeared to have similar characteristics to Stage 7. The first microseismic
events during Stage 2 were located on the opposite side of the treatment well from the monitoring tools
and asymmetric fracture extension was observed during the stage. Figure 12 is the frequency-magnitude
plot using the moment-magnitudes of the microseismic events located during Stage 2.

Figure 12. Stage 2 frequency-magnitude plot and trend line.

The difference in the trend of moment-magnitude values is readily apparent when comparing Stage 2 to
Stage 7. The b-value is approximately 2 for this data set and is illustrated by the trend line that has been
added to the plot.
SPE 134772 11

The b-value for all seven stages was determined and two anomalous stages, Stage 3 and Stage 6, were
observed. Each of these two stages has a less distinct linear trace when plotted and compared to the
remaining stages. Figure 13 displays the results. For clarity, the plots of data from Stage1 and Stage 2,
with b-values of approximately 2, were removed.

Figure 13. Comparison of frequency-mangitude data for selected stages.

Stage 6 was evaluated further to investigate if changes in the frequency-magnitude distribution occurred
during the stage. The only observation from the microseismic event locations and cumulative event count
was that there was a slight increase in the rate of microseismic event generation during the last 60
minutes of the stage.

The total pump time of the stage was approximately 180 minutes. The b-value was determined
continuously throughout the stage using a moving window of twenty microseismic events. The minimum
magnitude value of the events included in this analysis is -2.3, to avoid spatial distortion within the data
set. The result is shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14. Moving window calculation of b-value during stage 6.

12 SPE 134772

During the first 30 minutes of the stage the event magnitudes have a b-value of approximately 2. As the
stage progresses the b-value decreases, signaling a potential change from fracture-dominated
microseismic activity to fault-related microseismic activity.

Application

One of goals of real-time microseismic monitoring is avoidance of geohazards; therefore additional,

robust microseismic attributes beyond the time and location where microseismic activity occurs will be
beneficial. Hydraulic fractures that make contact with faults can prematurely screen out, result in
inefficient stimulation, or provide a conduit for water production. This can result in additional time and
expense required for a completion. Fracturing materials and fluids might be directed away from their
intended location. Water production increases costs and requires facilities to separate, store, transport,
and dispose of produced water.

The Stage 6 temporal analysis demonstrates that the influence of faults on fracture behavior is not always
obvious, and might occur at any time during a stimulation treatment. It is possible to use microseismic
moment-magnitude values from selected time periods to determine the b-value of those events, and
ascertain if microseismic events located while fracturing in progress exhibit properties that might
influenced by faults that are otherwise not easily identified.

The procedure and methodology are not specific to any single reservoir. The only requirement is to have
enough microseismic events with good location confidence to be statistically meaningful.

Conclusion

Microseismic evaluation that considers the location of microseismic activity, microseismic dimensions,
and microseismic volume cannot always provide an explanation for changes in observed fracture
behavior or determine if those changes might be caused by the presence of faults near or in contact with
the fracturing treatment. Interpretation based on the location and time of occurrence of microseismic
events can also be subjective and relies on the experience of the interpreter.

The geophysical characteristics associated with the microseismic events, such as magnitude, provide
information about the source of the microseismic activity that is independent of location. Frequency-
magnitude analysis integrates the geophysical properties of microseismic events with standard
microseismic evaluation techniques.

The value of this evaluation technique is that diagnosing the presence of faults and their effect on
fracturing treatments is not limited to post-job interpretation. Fault-related microseismic activity in
conjunction with hydraulic fracturing operations can be identified during a fracturing treatment, permitting
completion engineers to make decisions appropriate to the specific case.
SPE 134772 13

References

1. Cipolla, C.R., Warpinski, N.R., Mayerhofer, M.J., “Hydraulic Fracture Complexity: Diagnosis, Remediation, and
Exploitation,” SPE 115771 presented at the 2008 Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference, Perth, Australia, October 20-22
2. Daneshy, A. Ali,: “Factors Controlling the Vertical Growth of Hydraulic Fractures,” SPE 118789 presented at the 2009
Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Conference, Woodlands, Texas, January 19-21
3. Daniels, J., Waters, G., LeCalvez, J., Lassek, J., Bentley, D.,: “Contacting More of the Barnett Shale Through an
Integration of Real-Time Microseismic Monitoring, Petrophysics, and Hydraulic Fracture Design,” SPE 110562 presented
at the 2007 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, October 12-14
4. Drew, J., Leslie, D., Armstrong, P., Michaud, G., “Automated Microseismic Event Detection and Location by Continuous
Spatial Mapping,” SPE 95513 presented at the 2005 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October
9-12
5. Du, C., Zhang, X., Melton, B., Fullilove, D., Suliman, B., Gowelly, S., Grant, D., LeCalvez, J., “A Workflow for Integrated
Barnett Shale Gas Reservoir Modeling and Stimulation,” SPE 122934 presented at the 2009 Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference, Cartagena, Colombia, May 31 – June 3
6. Ketter, A., Heinze, J., Daniels, J., Waters, G., “A Field Study in Optimizing Completion Strategies for Fracture Initiation in
Barnett Shale Horizontal Wells,” SPE 103232 presented at the 2006 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, September 24-27
7. Maxwell, S.C., Jones, M., Parker, R., Miong, S., Leaney, S., Dorval, D., D’Amico, D., Logel, J., Anderson, E.,
Hammermaster, K., “Fault Activation During Hydraulic Fracturing,” presented at the 2009 SEG International Exposition
and Annual Meeting, Houston, Texas
8. Maxwell, S.C., Urbancik, T.I., Steinsberger, N.P., and Zinno, R.: “Microseismic Imaging of Hydraulic Fracture Complexity
in the Barnett Shale,” SPE 77440 presented at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, September 29 – October 2.
9. Maxwell, S.C., Jones, M., Parker, R., Miong, S., Leaney, S., Dorval, D., D’Amico, D., Logel, J., Anderson, E.,
Hammermaster, K., “Fault Activation During Hydraulic Fracturing,” presented at the 2009 SEG International Exposition
and Annual Meeting, Houston, Texas
10. Mayerhofer, M.J., Lolon, E.P., Youngblood, J.E., Heinze, J.R., “Integration of Microseismic Mapping Results With
Numerical Fracture Network Production Modeling in the Barnett Shale,” SPE 102103, presented at the 2006 Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, September 24-27
11. Rutledge, J.T., Phillips, W.S., Mayerhofer, M.J., “Faulting Induced by Forced Fluid Injection and Fluid Flow Forced by
Faulting: An Interpretation of Hydraulic Fracture Microseismicity, Carthage Cotton Valley Gas Field, Texas,” Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 94, No. 5, pp 1817-1830, October 2004
12. Warpinski, N.R., “Microseismic Monitoring: Inside and Out”, SPE 115837, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Volume 61,
Number 11, November, 2009
13. Warpinski, N.R., “Integrating Microseismic Monitoring With Well Completions, Reservoir Behavior, and Rock
Mechanics,” SPE 125239 presented at the Tight Gas Completions Conference, San Antonio, Texas, June 15-17
14. Warpinski, N.R., Tyler, L.D., Vollendorf, W.C., and Northrop, D.A.,: “Direct Observation of a Sand-Propped Hydraulic
Fracture,” Sandia National Laboratories Report, SAND81-0225, May 1981
15. Waters, G., Heinze, J., Jackson, R., Ketter, A., Daniels, J., Bentley, D.,: “Use of Horizontal Well Image Tools to Optimize
Barnett Shale Reservoir Exploitation,” SPE 103202 presented at the 2006 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Texas, September 24-27