SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

FRACTURE HEIGHT DETERMINATION

WITH TIME-LAPSE BOREHOLE ACOUSTICS ATTRIBUTES
E. Velez, L. Rodriguez, J. Zambrano, Schlumberger; E. Rodriguez, I. Bahamon, and C. Becerra, Ecopetrol

Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts

Copyright 2012, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts (SPWLA) and the submitting authors
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium held in Cartagena, Colombia, June 16-20, 2012.

ABSTRACT
As high-permeability reservoirs approach their last years of productivity, the oil and gas production will likely come
from low-permeability formations that require hydraulic fracture stimulation to be economically feasible. The
introduction of hydraulic fracturing as part of the normal completion procedure in fields located in the Upper Valley
of the Magdalena basin in Colombia has achieved a twofold increase in the oilfield production.
Companies need tools that help them determine how successfully the hydraulic fractures have optimized well
production and field development. These tools should provide information about hydraulic fracture conductivity,
geometry, complexity, and orientation.
A new workflow for a time-lapse anisotropy analysis using data from an acoustic scanning platform is used to
estimate the fracture height growth from the hydraulic fractures created in a typical well.
The application of the acoustic scanning platform technology as a fracture optimization tool allows a comprehensive
evaluation of the post stimulation production results. This provides precise information for calibration of the existing
geomechanical model, which will result in an optimized fracture design and corresponding positive effect in well
production and field development.
INTRODUCTION
Understanding the mechanics and geometry of hydraulic fractures has been a challenge since the first hydraulic
fracture jobs were performed.
The first aspect considered when designing a hydraulic fracture job is the reservoir characteristics. In lowpermeability reservoirs, which are the most common reservoirs stimulated, industry experts have established that the
fracture length is the overriding factor for increased productivity and recovery (Ali et al. 2002).
From a reservoir-development point of view, a practical understanding of the hydraulic fracture geometry and
orientation will enable engineers to determine the well spacing and hence the field development strategy to extract
more hydrocarbons.
Simulation engineers use hydraulic fracture simulators to design and predict optimal treatments. Basic inputs to this
model include fluid and proppant properties and volumes, closure stress, pore pressure, and mechanical rock
properties, such as Poissons ratio and Youngs modulus.
The risk of an inadequate treatment is increased by estimating these inputs. To reduce this risk, mechanical earth
models (MEMs) can be used as an input in the stimulation modeling (Fig. 1). Part of this step requires the
acquisition of logs to obtain petrophysical and mechanical properties. In this study, the acoustic scanning platform
log was used to acquire

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

compressional and shear velocities

maximum horizontal stress direction and magnitude (if anisotropy mechanism is stress induced, identified
by the dispersion analysis).

pore pressure estimation, etc.

The minimum horizontal stress can be calibrated by the direct measurement from a fracture data determination
service.
Fracture modeling is a necessary part of the stimulation design and improvement process. However, even the most
complex model falls short in predicting reality (Barre et al. 2002).

Fig. 1Hydraulic fracturing optimization feedback loop.

EVALUATE HYDRAULIC FRACTURE GEOMETRY
There are several methods to confirm hydraulic fracture geometry before, during, and after fracture creation (Fig. 2).
The most common way to evaluate the treatment and the resulting geometry is with a net pressure fracture analysis
shortly after, or even during, the fracture treatment.
Two other methods are post-treatment production analysis and well testing (buildup and drawdown). These two
better define the effective production geometry than what has been done hydraulically.
Near-wellbore methods are used to investigate the geometry of hydraulic fractures. These include radioactive
tracers, temperature, and production logs and are widely used to detect the hydraulic fracture height. Their limitation
is that their measurement in a region at or near the wellbore may not represent what is happening away from the
borehole. They are time-dependent, meaning logging must be done almost immediately after the hydraulic fracture
was created.
Production logs are used to identify perforation intervals that are open and contributing to flowback or production. A
positive flow response compared with a no-flow response from a pretreatment logging pass may imply that the zone
has been stimulated, but flow from a perforated interval may not mean the interval has been stimulated effectively:
the fluids could be flowing through communicating hydraulic fractures from one zone to the next.

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

The far-field methods for hydraulic fracture monitoring, such as surface and downhole tilt meters and microseismic
monitoring, have proved successful for characterizing hydraulic fracture behavior and geometry.
These methods are the best for determining the hydraulic fracture geometry but still have limitations: distance
between the monitor well and the treated well, the velocity model, the reservoir fluid type, etc. The limitations
sometimes constrain their use; another factor to consider is the cost of these services.
In this paper we illustrate a technique using time-lapse acoustic anisotropy acquisition to evaluate hydraulic fracture
geometry (mainly height); it can be classified between the near-wellbore methods and the far-field methods.
THEORY AND METHODOLOGY
Shear Anisotropy and Cross-Dipole Logging
Shear waves propagate through rocks with different velocities in different directions. This phenomenon is called
acoustic anisotropy, and it is caused by the anisotropic nature of the rocks elastic properties. All sedimentary rocks
exhibit some degree of acoustic anisotropy related to aligned fractures, layering, or stress imbalance.
A cross-dipole log is acquired using a sonic tool with orthogonal dipole transmitters. Each transmitter fires
independently and the information is acquired in the same reference line of the transmitters (inline) and at 90
degrees (cross-line).
Processing of the four-component acquired waveforms consists of Alford rotation at a given depth to identify the
fast- and slow-shear directions (Alford, 1986). The resulting waveforms corresponding to the fast- and slow-shear
orientations are then subjected to semblance processing to obtain the fast- and slow-shear slownesses, as described
by Kimball and Marzetta (1986) and Esmersoy et al. (1994). Table 1 gives a summary of the various techniques.

Table 1: Methods to evaluate hydraulic fracture geometry. The color scale denotes the reliability of the method
(Adapted from Cipolla and Wright 2000).

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

Sonic Waveform Dispersion Analysis

The past generations of cross-dipole tools were able to detect and quantify the amount of anisotropy but could not
identify the driving mechanism (anisotropy type), such as intrinsic or stress-induced anisotropy.
The ability to analyze the dipole flexural dispersive curve (where the low-frequency limit of the curves asymptotes
to the formation are the shear values) and model the tool acoustic behavior inside the well (not possible with dipole
sonic tools) has enabled new evaluation methods to identify the dominant mechanism causing anisotropy purely
from sonic measurements (Plona et al. 2000).
To identify the anisotropy mechanism using dispersion analysis (Fig. 3), we can divide the formation into four types:
Homogeneous isotropic: The dipole dispersion curves of cross-dipole data should fit to a model dispersion
curve calculated from the isotropic properties of the formation and borehole parameters in an isotropic
formation (Fig. 3a).
Heterogeneous isotropic: This indicates formation alteration (Fig. 3b).
Homogenous anisotropic: This indicates intrinsic anisotropy and can be related to layering (TIV) or fractures
(TIH) (Fig. 3c).
Heterogeneous anisotropic: This indicates stress-induced anisotropy around the borehole wall (Fig. 3d).

*
Schlumberge
r

Fig. 3Dispersion analysis for fracture anisotropy characterization: a) homogeneous isotropic, b) heterogeneous
isotropic, c) homogenous anisotropic, d) heterogeneous anisotropic
Differential Cased Hole Sonic Anisotropy
Differential cased hole sonic anisotropy (DCHSA) is a time-lapse technique using acoustic scanning platform data to
compare the anisotropy results before and after the hydraulic fracture job (Nikitin et al. 2006).
The objective is to determine the hydraulic fracture height using the better of the following two indicators:
1) differential energy (minimum-maximum energy) and slowness anisotropy (Sloani) where the fracture height is
the observed increase in anisotropy, and 2) shear slowness comparison (fast and slow) where the fracture height is
the difference between shears greater than 1% (empirical cutoff).

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

Traditionally, only the anisotropy difference analysis is analyzed and used when evaluating hydraulic fracture height
from time-lapse sonic analysis; there are some situations where the cross-energy difference and the Sloani difference
are not good indicators of the fracture height:
No anisotropy increment: This can be due to the effect of perforations not aligned with the preferred fracture
plane (PFP), creating nonaligned paths around the borehole at the depth of investigation of the acoustic
scanning platform (4 to 5 ft) (Fig. 4).
High anisotropy before the hydraulic fracture: This can be explained if the reservoir is in a highly tectonic area
(stress-induced anisotropy) or is too laminated (transverse intrinsic anisotropy). In any of these cases the
anisotropy increment created by the hydraulic fracture job could be difficult to detect.
Only if the data analysis covers the two points of the DCSHA technique can we obtain the hydraulic fracture height.

*
Schlumberge
r

Fig. 4Effect of perforations not aligned with the direction of maximum horizontal stress (PFP).

CASE OF STUDIES
We present studies of datasets acquired from two Colombia wells; each had different initial and final anisotropy
conditions.
Case Study 1
The first study is of a well in the Llanos basin of Colombia, where wells are historically difficult to fracture. In this
case, a hydraulic fracture stimulation model was built for three intervals (Fig. 5) that were to be perforated and
fractured. A stimulation model was built with calibrated mechanical properties from a 1D MEM created for the well
using acoustic scanning platform and openhole density data and calibrated minimum closure stress.
The prefracture anisotropy analysis shows no anisotropy along the logged interval, and based on dispersion analysis
the formation was classified as homogeneous isotropic. The postfracture anisotropy analysis showed no anisotropy
increment in the stimulated zones; however, from a comparison of the fast and slow shears before and after
treatment and calculation of the HF factor, the hydraulic fracture height was obtained.

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

Fig. 5Hydraulic fracture stimulation models using mechanical properties calculated from sonic scanning
platform data before treatment.
The results obtained with the DCHSA technique were compared with the stimulation models built on the MEM
properties and showed a very good match of the predicted and the actual fracture height (Figs. 6, 7, 8). In this case,
the next logical step is a pressure-matching job to obtain the fracture length.

Fig. 6Hydraulic fracture height obtained vs. modeled height, Stage 1

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

Fig. 7Hydraulic fracture height obtained vs. modeled height, Stage 2.

Fig. 8Hydraulic fracture height obtained vs. modeled height, Stage 3.

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

Case Study 2
This well is located in the Putumayo basin in southern Colombia, where hydraulic fracturing is the established
primary stimulation method for production optimization. The porosity of the sands range from 15% to 18%, and
permeability is between 5 to 50 mD. Sand U3, highlighted in pink on Fig. 9, is a fracture treatment candidate. The
objective of the hydraulic fracture is to bypass the formation skin damage and create a conductive channel to
increase production.

Fig. 9Petrophysical analysis for Case Study 2: The pink zone is the candidate for hydraulic fracture treatment.
In this case the stimulation model uses as input the formation petrophysical lithology and correspondent mechanical
properties values. The geomechanical model evolved based on sonic logs from several wells in the field and was
calibrated by using diagnostic pumping data, but it was never compared to any information after treatment. The
results of the stimulation model are shown in Fig. 10, where the model fracture height is shown as 60 ft.

Fig. 10Stimulation model for the U3 sand; fracture height modeled is 60.3 ft .

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

The prefracture analysis shows small amounts of anisotropy on the bottom of the logged interval; the anisotropy was
classified as stress induced. The U3 sand shows no anisotropy.
The postfracture analysis shows no increment in energy difference on the U3 sand, a very small shear velocity
difference, and about a 2% increment in slowness anisotropy. The fracture height obtained is 48 ft.
The results obtained with the DCHSA technique are only 12 ft less than that predicted with the stimulation model.
This result shows that the small shale at the bottom of the sand contains the fracture; the model predicts the fracture
grows 12 ft below this. Fig. 11 shows a comparison of the actual results versus the modeled fracture.

Fig. 11Case Study 2: Comparison of fracture heights obtained with the DCHSA technique and the stimulation
model.
The information provided by the DCHSA analysis was critical not only for the well but for the whole field. The
wells water cut after treatment was higher than expected, and by initial analysis this was attributed to a possible
fracture contact with a water zone located just below the interval. Confirmation that the fracture was contained was
made by the post-treatment analysis and resulted in a calibration of the saturation model to match the water
production obtained after fracturing the interval.

CONCLUSIONS
The fracture height enables a comprehensive evaluation of the post-stimulation production results.
Precise information is available for calibration of the existing geomechanical model, which results in an optimized
fracture design (fracture geometry and conductivity).

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

Fracture height also results allows a better prediction of the well productivity.
The DCSHA technique expands the use of acoustic anisotropy with dispersion analysis into the stimulation
production domain.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Ecopetrol for permission to publish this work, Marcelo Frydman for his valuable help on this paper, and
the Colombia geomechanics team for their contribution to the work presented.
REFERENCES
Alford, R.M., 1986, Shear data in the presence of azimuthal anisotropy: 56th SEG Ann. Internat. Mtg.,Expanded
Abstracts, 476479.
Ali, S., Norman, D., Wagner, D., Ayoub, J. et al., 2002, Combined stimulation and sand control: Oilfield Review
14(2), 3047.
Barre, R.D., Fisher, M.K., and Woodrof, R.A., 2002, A practical guide to hydraulic fracture diagnostic technologies:
Paper SPE 77442 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29
September2 October.
Cipolla, C.L. and Wright, C.A., 2002, Diagnostic techniques to understand hydraulic fracturing: What? Why? And
How?: Paper SPE 59735 presented at the SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, 35 April.
V

Esmersoy, C., Boyd, A., Kane, M., and Denoo, S., 1995, Fracture and stress evaluation using dipole-shear
anisotropy logs: Paper J presented at the 36th SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium. Paris, 26-29, June
Kimball, C.V., and Marzetta, T.L., 1986, Semblance processing of borehole acoustic array data: Geophysics, 49,
no. 3, 274281.
Mueller, M., Boyd, A., and Esmersoy, C., 1994, Case studies of the dipole shear anisotropy log: SEG Annual
International Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 11431146.
Nikitin, A., Maniere, J. et al., 2006, Differential cased hole sonic anisotropy for evaluation of propped fracture
geometry in western Siberia, Russia: Paper SPE 102405 presented at the SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, 36 October.
Plona, T.J., Sinha, B.K., Kane, M.R., and Viloria, O., 2000, Using acoustic anisotropy: Paper H presented at the 41th
SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Dallas, Texas, 4 -7, June
Saldungaray P., Barrienos P., Wielemaker E., Plona T., Haldorsen J.B.U., 2006, Anisotropy evaluation in the
Cuitlahuac field Mexico, from cross-dipole sonics and borehole seismics generated by two orthogonal shear
vibrators: Paper presented at the 47th SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Veracruz, Mexico, 47 June.
Tang, X.M. and Chunduru, R.K., 1997, Inversion of shear wave anisotropy from cross-dipole logging data: SEG
Annual International Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 274.

10

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Edgar Velez is a senior petrophysics engineer working in the area of sonic waveform processing an interpretation
with wireline supporting the implementation and application of advance acoustics answers for Latin America, Edgar
started as a junior log analyst in 2003, in Villahermosa Mexico after graduating with a bachelors degree in
Geophysical engineering from the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. He has been in different positions in
Schlumberger as Petrophysicist, Data Services leader in Mexico North and Acoustic Domain Champion. He is
member of the SPWLA and SPE.
Lucia Rodriguez is a Civil Engineer from Universidad Nacional de Colombia with a Master in Geomechanics from
the same university and Specialized in Project Management from Universidad del Rosario in Colombia. Luca
joined Schlumberger since 2005 and currently is in charge of geomechanics activity for Colombia, Per, Ecuador,
Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago with Data and Consulting Services, the geosciences segment of Schlumberger.
She has developed several geomechanics projects for different applications such as wellbore stability, sanding,
fracturing and reservoirs from 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D perspectives.
Jose Rafael Zambrano is a Petrophysicist Log Analyst working in the areas of sonic waveform processing and
others petrophysical log data processing and interpretation with Schlumberger Data & Consulting Services in
Bogota, Colombia. Rafael started with Schlumberger as Borehole Geologist in 2009, after graduating with
Bachelors degree in Geological Engineering from Peoples Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia.
Eusebio Rodriguez is a Senior Stimulation Engineer working for ECOPETROL S.A., with experience in matrix
acidizing, hydraulic and acid fracturing, water and sand control. Graduated as Petroleum Engineer from Zulia
University (LUZ) in Venezuela in 1994. Eusebio has worked in west and east Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia,
Ecuador and Argentina as field engineer, technical advisor and developing technical solutions for specific
applications.
Jorge Italo Bahamon is a Senior Stimulation Engineer in charge of the Stimulation Program for ECOPETROL
S.A. (NOC in Colombia). Jorge Italo started as a field engineer for Stimulation, Coiled Tubing and cementing
services in 2,002 in Permian Basin (New Mexico, USA) after graduating with a Bachelors degree in Petroleum
Engineering from the Universidad de America, Bogota, Colombia. Since that time he has been involved in different
areas regarding stimulation such us global coach for matrix stimulation and hydraulic fracturing, and sales leader for
stimulation services in different areas such as United States, Mexico and Colombia in America; and Egypt and
Malaysia Overseas. He is a registered professional Engineer in Colombia (ACIPET) and a member of SPE
Carlos Becerra is a petroleum engineer from the University of America (Bogota, Colombia) with specialization in
finance of Unillanos in Villavicencio Meta, started his work experience in the area of drilling fluids in the Cusiana
and Cupiagua fields of the BP company in Colombia, in 2006 started work on the Colombian state company
Ecopetrol, initially as a production engineer and treatment wells of Apiay field, then in 2007 joined the group
professional of Subsurface operations for Castilla field in the llanos orientales basin, he planning and designing
Workover operations to the wells of these field. Since 2009 and to date is coordinating operations of Fracture and
Stimulation in Apiay and Suria, fields of the Superintendent of operations Apiay Ecopetrol also is part of
communities of practice of well stimulation and Workover of Ecopetrol.

11