Constraining Geomechanical Model Development by Utilizing Microseismic Derived Fracture Characteristics

10.2118/178611-ms ◽

2015 ◽

Author(s):

Adam Baig ◽

Ted Urbancic ◽

Jonathan Gallagher ◽

Eric von Lunen

Keyword(s):

Model Development ◽

Geomechanical Model ◽

Fracture Characteristics

Download Full-text

Constraining Geomechanical Model Development by Utilizing Microseismic Derived Fracture Characteristics

10.1190/segam2015-5929475.1 ◽

2015 ◽

Author(s):

Adam M. Baig* ◽

Ted Urbancic ◽

Jonathan Gallagher ◽

Eric von Lunen

Keyword(s):

Model Development ◽

Geomechanical Model ◽

Fracture Characteristics

Download Full-text

Marcellus Shale model stimulation tests and microseismic response yield insights into mechanical properties and the reservoir discrete fracture network

Interpretation ◽

10.1190/int-2016-0199.1 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 6 (2) ◽

pp. T231-T243 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Thomas H. Wilson ◽

Tim Carr ◽

B. J. Carney ◽

Malcolm Yates ◽

Keith MacPhail ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Stress Reduction ◽

Horizontal Well ◽

Marcellus Shale ◽

Model Development ◽

Fracture Network ◽

Discrete Fracture Network ◽

Geomechanical Model ◽

Geomechanical Properties ◽

Discrete Fracture ◽

Stimulation Tests

We have developed stimulation tests of a model discrete fracture network (DFN) in the Marcellus Shale reservoir, Morgantown, West Virginia. The microseismic response observed from the modeled stage is characteristic of that observed in several stages along the length of the horizontal well, so that the workflow developed in this paper can be easily extended to other stages in this and other Marcellus Shale wells. The model DFN is designed using log data, including fracture image logs from vertical pilot and horizontal wells. Data from these wells provide geomechanical properties, fracture trend and intensity, and stress orientation. Microseismic cluster trends provide additional constraints on geomechanical model development. Results from stimulation tests are used to modify the reservoir DFN and geomechanical model. Modifications ensure consistency with borehole observations. Fractures observed along the length of the horizontal well consist predominantly of one set, whereas two sets are observed in the vertical pilot well. These two sets are required in the model DFN to reproduce the stimulation trend inferred from microseismic data. Northeast asymmetry in the microseismicity associated with hydraulic fracture treatment is interpreted to result from a horizontal drop of [Formula: see text] toward a previously drilled well. The asymmetry is interpreted to result from stress reduction associated with treatment of an earlier parallel well, the presence of a cross-strike structure parallel to the well, or a combination of the two. Limited downward growth, inferred from the microseismic response, required an increase of the minimum stress in model strata underlying the Marcellus.

Download Full-text

Electron Microscopy of Metal-Matrix Composites

Proceedings, annual meeting, Electron Microscopy Society of America ◽

10.1017/s0424820100069016 ◽

1970 ◽

Vol 28 ◽

pp. 404-405

Author(s):

A. Lawley ◽

M. R. Pinnel ◽

A. Pattnaik

Keyword(s):

Electron Microscopy ◽

Metal Matrix Composites ◽

Metal Matrix ◽

Critical Evaluation ◽

Elastic Behavior ◽

Matrix Composites ◽

Directionally Solidified ◽

Fracture Characteristics ◽

Broad Program

As part of a broad program on composite materials, the role of the interface on the micromechanics of deformation of metal-matrix composites is being studied. The approach is to correlate elastic behavior, micro and macroyielding, flow, and fracture behavior with associated structural detail (dislocation substructure, fracture characteristics) and stress-state. This provides an understanding of the mode of deformation from an atomistic viewpoint; a critical evaluation can then be made of existing models of composite behavior based on continuum mechanics. This paper covers the electron microscopy (transmission, fractography, scanning microscopy) of two distinct forms of composite material: conventional fiber-reinforced (aluminum-stainless steel) and directionally solidified eutectic alloys (aluminum-copper). In the former, the interface is in the form of a compound and/or solid solution whereas in directionally solidified alloys, the interface consists of a precise crystallographic boundary between the two constituents of the eutectic.

Download Full-text