SPWLA 56th Annual Logging Symposium, July 18-22, 2015

Shale Fracturing Characterization and Optimization by Using Anisotropic Acoustic

Interpretation, 3D Fracture Modeling and Neural Network
Deepak Gokaraju, Ming Gu, Dingding Chen, Mehdi E. Far, and John Quirein, Halliburton
Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts
Copyright 2015, 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 56th Annual Logging
Symposium held in Long Beach, CA, USA, July 18-22, 2015.

ABSTRACT
Multiple fractures or an extensive fracture network is
critical for commercially viable production from low
permeability formations, such as shales. Mechanical
anisotropy is inherent in shales because of its platy nature.
This inherent anisotropy makes fracture prediction in shales
more complex, and traditional methods to predict fracture
geometry assuming isotropy frequently prove to be
inadequate. Current analytical methods boldly assume a
constant fracture height and constant mechanical properties
for the entire height. Common 3D fracture modeling
software are based on isotropic rock models, and models
that take anisotropy into account are computationally
expensive and time consuming, especially when numerous
simulations must be performed by varying the input
parameters for parametric study.
This paper proposes a workflow to improve the prediction
of fracture geometry in anisotropic formations. The
workflow involves generating a neural network by using a
limited number of 3D fracture modeling cases. After the
neural network is obtained from a pilot or offset well, it can
be easily embedded into software for optimizing fracture
design, identifying geologic sweet spots, and predicting
fracture propagation and correlating the results to other
horizontal or vertical wells in the same geological area.
This process can be divided into three steps. First, the
anisotropic models are used to predict horizontal and
vertical Youngs modulus (Ehorz and Evert), Poissons ratio
(horz and vert), and anisotropic minimum horizontal stress
(hmin_ani) from sonic and density log measurements. Second,
the elastic moduli properties and hmin_ani are entered into a
3D fracture modeling simulator to run different cases by
varying the completion input parameters. The outputs of the
fracture simulator (i.e., the fracture length, height, width,
and effective length) serve as a training database to the
neural network. In the final step, a neural network is
generated based on the training database. After the
reservoir-specific neural network is developed, fracture
geometry can be predicted or optimized for numerous
combinations of completion input parameters in a timely

and cost effective manner. Because the commonly available

commercial fracture modeling software assumes isotropy, a
new method is presented in this paper to represent
mechanical property anisotropy using equivalent Youngs
modulus (Eeq) and Poissons ratio (eq). Eeq and eq are
derived from Ehorz, Evert, horz, and vert and the isotropic
(Sneddon and Berry 1958) and anisotropic (Chertov 2012)
width functions.
This workflow is demonstrated by generating a neural
network for two reservoirs using anisotropic elastic moduli
as predicted by the dipole sonic log. The fracture geometry
predicted by the neural network is compared with the
conventional method, assuming the isotropic shale rock. The
results show that by assuming an isotropic model the
fracture width is overestimated, and the fracture
containment and propped length are underestimated. The
anisotropic neural network model is further run in a large
parametric study to demonstrate how the effective length
varies with perforation position, injection volume, and
injection rate. The results helped to optimize perforation
depth, injection rate, and pumped volume.
INTRODUCTION
The combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal
drilling has made production from unconventional
reservoirs, such as shales and tight formations possible.
However, because of the laminated and platy nature intrinsic
to shales, isotropic models built from logs cannot fully
describe them. The isotropic model assumes homogeneity
across the entire formation and computes a single Youngs
modulus and a single Poissons ratio from sonic and density
measurements. Schoenberg et al. (1996) proposed a
simplified anisotropic model for shales (ANNIE model).
The ANNIE model computes the stiffness tensor for a
transversely isotropic model by assuming Thomsens third
parameter () to be 0. Another assumption the ANNIE
model makes based on observation is in many shales, C12=
C13 to compute different elastic moduli in different
directions.
Quirein et al. (2014) observed the ANNIE model always
horz, and the stress predicted using the
predicts vert
ANNIE model is the same as the isotropic model in absence
of any field data for calibration. Quirein et al. (2014)
1

SPWLA 56th Annual Logging Symposium, July 18-22, 2015

proposed the modified ANNIE model allows for cases

where vert horz and also predicts the anisotropic closure
stress is higher than the closure stress estimated from the
isotropic model.

pump time can be optimized using the effective propped

area, which greatly influences both short-term and longterm production rates.
ELASTIC MODULI FROM ANISOTROPIC MODELS

To predict fracture geometry in shales, it is important they

are characterized accurately. Hence, accounting for
anisotropy in elastic moduli is equally important as using
closure stress computed from an anisotropic model. Most
commercial fracture simulation software used today do not
account for anisotropy in elastic moduli. Fully 3D finite
element models that predict fracture geometry do take
anisotropy in elastic moduli into account but are
computationally expensive, time consuming and not a
practical solution.

To compute elastic moduli (Youngs modulus and Poissons

ratio), the stiffness tensor must be calculated first. For a
transverse isotropic material, five independent stiffness
coefficients are required to build the complete stiffness
tensor. For a VTI medium (transverse isotropic with a
vertical axis of symmetry), they are C11, C33, C44, C12, and
C13. The dipole sonic tool in a vertical well in a VTI
medium can measure the following velocities: vertical Pwave (C33), two vertically propagating horizontally
polarized S-waves (C44 and C55), and the Stoneley wave
which is used to derive the horizontally propagating,
horizontally polarized S-wave (C66) (Norris et al. 1993).

Hydraulic fracture optimization is tricky and reservoir

dependent as very few parameters are under human control.
Stress barriers, fracture orientation, and elastic properties of
the formation are significant in hydraulic fracture
propagation, which cannot be altered or controlled. The
parameters under human control are secondary parameters,
such as fluid viscosity, pump rate, pump volume, and
perforation depth. These parameters have to be chosen
carefully on the basis of reservoir prevailing conditions and
the targets set, such as fracturing fluid viscosity and the
foam quality in fracturing fluids. Not only do they impact
fracture geometry but also impact fracture conductivity and
effective propped length when combined with proppant
density and quantity used. Low viscosity fluids with small
proppant injection proved successful in the Barnett Shale
but could not reproduce the same amount of success in other
formations. The effect of foam quality on effective propped
length and success of a hydraulic fracture design has been
studied in detail by various authors (Gu et al. 2014; Sani et
al. 2001; Powell et al. 1999). The effect of proppant size and
density in combination with fluids is not covered in this
paper but their impact is described in detail by Gu and
Kulkarni (2014), Gu and Dao (2015), and Phatak et al.
(2013). To fully understand the impact on fracturing design
and fractured well productivity, one needs to conduct a
massive parametric study.

Because these four velocities are not sufficient to build the

complete stiffness tensor, additional boundary conditions
are imposed using the ANNIE model (Shoenberg et al.
1996; Higgins et al. 2008; Waters et al. 2011). C11, C13, and
C33 can be estimated by setting the Thomsen parameter to
zero.
C13 + 2*C44 C33 = 0 (which gives one C13)

(1)

and the second constraint is that, in many shales, C13 = C12;

and therefore,
C13 = C12 = C11 2*C66

(2)

and combining Eqs. 1 and 2,

C66 C44 = (C11 C33)/2.

(3)

The stiffness tensor can also be computed by imposing a

modified set of boundary conditions using the modified
ANNIE model. To account for cases where vert horz, the
boundary conditions in Eqs. 2 and 3 have been modified as
follows:

This paper proposes a workflow to compute a single

Youngs modulus (Eeq) and a single Poissons ratio (eq) that
take anisotropy in elastic moduli into account and can be
used as inputs into the fracture simulation software. This
paper also demonstrates the proposed methodology to
optimize hydraulic fracturing parameters in unconventional
reservoirs more efficiently by combining log interpretation,
fracture modeling, neural networks, and a parametric study
on two different formations. Optimized solutions for
perforation depth, fracturing fluid pump rate, and fluid

C13 = kC12 = k(C11 2*C66)

(4)

C11 = k (2(C66 C44)) + C33

(5)

k and k are determined using field and core data. Once the
stiffness tensor is completed using an appropriate
anisotropic model, horizontal and vertical dynamic elastic
properties are computed using Eqs. 69.
2

SPWLA 56th Annual Logging Symposium, July 18-22, 2015

(6)
.

(7)

(9)

LINEAR ELASTIC FRACTURE MODELS

Sneddon and Berry (1958) estimated the width of an
elliptical crack in an isotropic medium as shown in Eq. 10.
,

(10)

In Eq. 10, w is the maximum fracture width in the center of

the elliptical cross section, h is fracture height, net is net
pressure (fracture pressure minus closure stress), E and v are
the isotropic Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio. net is the
distributed pressure inside a fracture and is a function of the
distance from the wellbore to the fracture tip and the
pumping time. Eq. 10 estimates the width of the fracture at
the corresponding location based on net. Chertov (2012)
proposed a similar equation to estimate fracture width in a
transverse isotropic formation using both horizontal and
vertical elastic moduli as shown in Eq. 11.
,

0,
(11)

(16)

(18)

(19)

In the equation system above, f(E,v) is the elastic property

or
depending on the type
term and can either be
of formation of interest, q0 is the injection rate, is the
fracturing fluid viscosity, h is the fracture height, t is the
injection time, and cw, cl are unit conversion coefficients.
The 2D analytical models are simple and straightforward to
understand the impact of elastic properties and completion
parameters on fracture geometries. A major drawback for
such models is they assume a fixed fracture height and
constant elastic properties along the height, which is not
generally valid for laminated shale reservoirs.

(13)
1

(17)

(12)

0,

where
1

Multiple fracture models have been developed using Eq. 10,

which can be extended for anisotropic rocks using Eqs.
1116. Two of the most widely accepted fracture models are
the Perkins-Kern-Nordgren (PKN) model (Perkins and Kern
1961; Nordgren 1972) and the Geertsma-de Klerk (GDK)
model (Khristianovitch and Zheltov 1955; Geertsma and de
Klerk 1969). The PKN and GDK models are similar except
for the differences in their basic assumptions. The PKN
model assumes an elliptic cross section with a fixed fracture
height and is mainly used when the fracture length is much
greater than the fracture height whereas the GDK model
assumes a rectangular cross section and is mainly used when
the fracture height is comparable to or more than the
fracture length. These models are developed by combining
Eq. 10 with the mass balance and fluid flow physics. The
estimated fracture geometry equations given by PKN
without considering leakoff are given below:

(8)
.

(15)

(14)

where Eh and Ev are horizontal and vertical Youngs

modulus, vh and vv are horizontal and vertical Poissons
ratio, and Gvh is the shear modulus in the x-z plane. The
elastic response of the rock in the above equations can be
represented using a single term f for simplicity. f for
isotropic and anisotropic rocks is given as follows:

Commercial fracture simulation softwares make use of

coupled equations and numerical simulations to simulate
fracture propagation with fluid and proppant flow in a 3D
space (Gu and Leung 1993; Sousa et al. 1993). Some widely
used simulators do not take the anisotropy in elastic
properties into account although they do take complex stress
layering into account. Elastic anisotropy can be accounted
3

SPWLA 56th Annual Logging Symposium, July 18-22, 2015

for during hydraulic fracturing using fully 3D finite element

solvers (Gokaraju and Eckert 2014). However, they are time
consuming and do not provide a practical solution especially
when multiple cases must be run to pick the most effective
treatment parameters.

static from dynamic using core measurements. Closure

pressure can then be estimated using the elastic moduli as
shown below.

H min

THE NEURAL NETWORK APPROACH

p p

An artificial neural network is a powerful tool in

recognizing the relation between different parameters and
outputs, which can be used to develop an optimized
solution. The basic structure of a neural network consists of
an input layer, an output layer, and multiple hidden layers.
The neural network is usually trained and validated with
multiple runs with known outputs; thereby, the model
structure and coefficients can be automatically adjusted to
optimize the predictions on existing runs and generalize
well on the new data for future applications.

E h v
( v (1 ) p p )
E v (1 h )
Eh

1 h

H min

E h h
1 h

H max

(20)

where,

Hmin is the minimum horizontal stress (psi), v is the

overburden stress (psi), pp is the pore pressure (psi), is the
Biots elastic constant, Hmin is the minimum horizontal
strain, Hmax is the maximum horizontal strain, and is the
poroelastic constant. f(E,v) is then calculated from the
elastic moduli using Eq. 15 or Eq. 16, depending on the
formation.

This paper proposes a methodology in which a reservoirspecific neural network is built and trained to quickly and
accurately predict fracture geometry, effective propped area
for any type of formation, and any given completion
parameters (e.g., perforation position, injection rate,
injection time, etc.). This can be extended to run a
parametric study which helps in selecting optimal hydraulic
fracturing parameters to produce the largest EPA (shortterm production) or stimulated reservoir volume (SRV)
(long-term production).

Because most simulation software uses isotropic elastic

moduli, an equivalent Youngs modulus (Eeq) and Poissons
ratio (eq) are calculated to best simulate anisotropic elastic
moduli using a single E and Eeq can be calculated by the
following equation which is a modified and weighted
version of the equation used by Chertov (2012).

(21)

where vvh is the arithmetic averaging for vv and vh and ai is

the weight coefficient from 0 to 1 (ah+av+avh=1). Using the
calculated f(E,v) and Eeq, an equivalent veq can be calculated
by Eq. 21.

,
2

(22)

In the second step, the rock mechanic properties (Eeq, veq)

and the closure stress h from step 1 are input into a 3D
fracture modeling simulator. The completion parameters,
such as slurry injection rate (qinj), total slurry volume (Qtol),
and the perforation depth (TVDperf) are varied to generate
the training database with the output results, such as fracture
length (Lf), height (Hf), width (wf), and effective propped
length (Leff). The training database is then used to produce
the neural network. To improve the computation efficiency,
multiple modeling cases are run by varying the fracture
parameters. To generate an initial training database, each
completion parameter is varied by x values equally
distributed within the range of interest. The x value is
dependent on the level of accuracy sought. For the two

Fig 1. Complete workflow for optimizing completion parameters using

sonic measurements.

Fig. 1 illustrates the workflow of generating and training a

neural network from sonic measurements and extended to
optimize completion parameters. Once the elastic moduli of
a rock are computed, they are calibrated and converted to
4

SPWLA 56th Annual Logging Symposium, July 18-22, 2015

organic shales used in this study, x was chosen to be 3-5

(i.e., each parameter was varied up to 5 times). Therefore, if
there are n parameters, the total number of training sample
combinations is xn. In this study, there are three input
completion parameters: slurry injection rate, total injection
volume, and perforation position along the horizontal well.
The horizontal position is correlated with depth based on
geosteering data. Five output results are fracture length,
fracture height, fracture width, upper and lower depth of
fracture, and effective propped length.

the sonic velocities, Youngs modulus, and closure pressure.

The interval can be divided into five zones based on closure
stress. Fig. 3 shows a design of a toe-up horizontal well
inside the pay. The toe-up strategy has been used for both
cases. Fracture simulations will be performed on the lateral
part of the shown hypothetical well.
Shale 1 is a transversely isotropic media with vertical axis
of symmetry (TIV) with horizontal Poissons ratio greater
than its vertical counterpart. Hence, the modified ANNIE
method was used to compute the stiffness tensor from sonic
velocities. f(E,) and closure stress are computed using Eqs.
16 and 20 respectively. A 3D isotropic simulator was used
to run the simulation models and Eeq and eq were calculated
using Eqs. 21 and 22 respectively.

Once the neural network is generated, a group of testing

data is run to check the relative error of the outputs for each
input parameter. For any input parameter, if the tolerance
relative error is not met between Node_i and Node _i+1, one
more data point Node_i+1/2 is added in between. The extra
cases regarding the added data point are run in fracture
modeling to update the current training database, and further
update the neural network. Testing is run on the new neural
network. If the tolerance error is met for all input
parameters, the neural network is left unaltered. Otherwise,
it updates itself using the added database until the criterion
is met.
Once the neural network is obtained, one can either predict
fracture geometry and location based on the input of
arbitrary completion values, or determine the optimized
fracturing design by conducting a massive parametric study
with the neural network. For fracturing optimization, the
effective propped length (EPL) is one of the best candidates
to be the optimization target among all the predicted
outputs. It is the propped length within the payzone
occupied by infinite relative conductivity (Fcd>50). EPL
dominates the short-term production and affects the longterm production. For better optimization, a critical
conductivity can be used instead of infinite relative
conductivity to define the effective propped length. The
critical conductivity is defined as the minimum conductivity
needed for fully stimulating a certain propped length during
a certain production time. It is a function of propped length,
production time, matrix permeability, natural fracture
properties, oil API, and other completion and production
parameters. (Gu et al. 2014).

Fig. 2. Uranium, sonic, lithology, elastic moduli, and stress data for Shale 1.

STUDY OF FIELD CASES

The proposed methodology has been applied to two organic
rich shales to develop an optimized EPL and completion
parameters. In case 1, the stress barriers are highly defined
with the stress difference between the payzone and the
bounding layer being as high as 3,000 psi. Fig. 2 is a plot of
5

SPWLA 56th Annual Logging Symposium, July 18-22, 2015

Simulations were performed for a single fracture in Shale 2

that acted as a training database for the generation of a
neural network and an optimized solution.
Tables 1 and 2 show the variation used for parameter inputs
while generating a training database for Shales 1 and 2
respectively. X is the middle of the payzone.

Fig. 3. Toe-up horizontal well inside lower payzone.

For Shale 2, the stress barrier is not as well defined as case

1. Fig. 4 shows uranium, elastic moduli, lithology, and
closure pressures. Because of its complex closure stress
profile, the interval has been divided into 20 zones, two of
which are hydrocarbon-bearing reservoirs.

Parameter

Min value

Max value

Step size

Perforation depth
(ft)

X-50

X+50

20

Fluid injection rate

(bbl/min)

30

50

10

Fluid injection
Volume (M-gal)

10

30

Table 1. Input parameter variation for Shale 1.

Parameter

Min value

Max value

Step size

Perforation depth
(ft)

X-53

X+72

20

Fluid injection rate

(bbl/min)

15

30

Fluid injection
Volume (M-gal)

10

40

Table 2. Input parameter variation for Shale 2.

Fig. 4. Uranium, lithology, elastic moduli, and stress data for Shale 2.

SPWLA 56th Annual Logging Symposium, July 18-22, 2015

Shale 2. Fig. 6 is an example showing the target values of

Leff and values predicted by the neural network in Shale 1.
The solid dots indicate target values, while the hollow dots
are predictions. The red ones are 70 training data points,
while the green ones are seven random testing cases.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Fig. 5 shows a typical fracture profile result. This example
was run on Shale 1.

Fig. 5. Typical fracture profile plot using fracture design and analysis

Fig. 6. Comparison of target values and values predicted by the neural

software.

network.

The track on the left shows the fracture width-height cross

section, while the track on the right shows the length-height
cross section. The color shaded contour represents the
conductivity distribution. Only the conductivity distribution
within the payzone (boundaries marked using yellow
colored lines) governs the fracture productivity. The fracture
conductivity decreases with increasing propped length as
shown by the solid purple line. In the same plot, the
minimum conductivity required to fully stimulate different
propped length is indicated by red lines. The red lines
represent the 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year production using
the minimum conductivity criteria (Gu et al. 2014).
According to the red lines, as fracture length increases, the
minimum conductivity required to fully stimulate the length
increases. For the same propped length, the minimum
conductivity increases with decreasing production time.
Therefore, the intersection between the purple and red lines
represents the effective length for the certain production
time. For example, for 1-year shot-term optimization, to
meet the infinite conductivity criteria, the purple line should
always be above the red-dotted line. Their cross is the
maximum fracture length with the infinite conductivity.
Through this way, the effective length at different
production time scale is determined.

Once a neural network is generated for a specific reservoir,

it can be used to predict fracture geometry and fracture
geometry-based production performance for any
combination of input parameters, which in this case are
perforation depth, fluid injection rate, and fluid injection
volume. Because the anisotropic elastic parameters and
complex anisotropic closure pressure profile were both
accounted for, the results can be generated instantaneously
with a high degree of accuracy.
In Fig. 7, this is demonstrated by randomly selecting the
slurry injection rate and the total injection volume in Shale 1
to be 48 bbl/min and 23 Mgal. Fracture length, height,
width, TVD of the upper and lower fracture boundaries, and
effective propped length are all calculated as a function of
horizontal well distance.
Similarly, Fig. 8 shows fracture length, height, width, and
effective propped length are all calculated as a function of
depth in Shale 2 using slurry injection rate and the total
injection volume to be 30 bbl/min and 40 Mgal respectively.

A neural network is generated using a training database

consisting of multiple cases. The different cases are
obtained by varying injection rate by three values, injection
volume by five values, and perforation position by four
values in Shale 1 and by varying injection rate, injection
volume and perforation position each by five values in
7

SPWLA 56th Annual Logging Symposium, July 18-22, 2015

position. Leff is 400-460 ft for the first half of the horizontal

well, while 360-400 ft for the second half. Injection rate
does not have much effect on the effective length. For
positions from 0.2 to 1, lower injection rate produces a little
longer length. Within the well tip part (<0.2), a reversed
effect is observed. Fig. 9 shows the common practice of
perforating at the bottom of the payzone expecting better
results is always true. In this case, perforating in the top half
of the payzone yields a much higher Leff and in turn better
production. Based on the figure, optimal injection rate can
be determined at different lateral position to yield the
maximum Leff/vinj.

Fig. 7. Fracture dimensions and locations predicted by neural network for

Shale 1.

Fig. 9. Fractures predicted by neural network for the whole lateral at 20

Mgal per stage and varied injection rate in Shale 1.

Fig. 10 illustrates how the effective propped length varies

with perforation position and injection volume at a given
injection rate of 40 bbl/min per stage. According to the
results below, to generate the same effective propped length,
more slurry should be pumped for the second half of the
horizontal well. For example, to produce 380 ft effective
propped length (red dashed curve), pump 1015 Mgal for
the first half of the horizontal well and 1520 Mgal for the
second half. For a certain position, propped length increases
with increasing pumping volume.

Fig. 8. Fracture dimensions and locations predicted by neural network for

Shale 2.

The generated neural network can also be used to optimize

the fracture completion parameters using a parametric study.
In both cases, completion parameters are optimized by
trying to achieve the highest EPL which is critical to
production performance in low permeability formations.

Fig. 10. Fractures predicted by neural network for the whole lateral at 40
bbl/min per stage and varied injection volume.

Fig. 9 illustrates how the effective propped length varies

with perforation position and injection rate in Shale 1 at a
given injection volume of 20 Mgal/stg. It shows that the
effective length is mainly controlled by the perforation
8

SPWLA 56th Annual Logging Symposium, July 18-22, 2015

This can be further extended to include the net present value

(NPV) for optimizing the fluid injection volume. The
permeability and porosity of Shale 1 gas reservoir were
found to be 200 nD and 8%, respectively from well logs.
The well is assumed to be producing at a constant
bottomhole pressure and an initial drawdown of 3,000 psi.
Fracture spacing is 100 ft. Gas price is assumed to be
$4/Mscf. The treatment costs related to the slickwater,
pumping equipment and services have been bundled to be a
value of $3/gal of slurry volume employed. By
incorporating the parametric study results of Fig. 10 in a
reservoir simulator, 1-, 5-, and 20-year NPV are generated
as a function of perforation position and total pump volume
per stage (Fig. 13). In the contour maps, red represents high
NPV while blue represents low NPV. According to Fig.13,
optimal perforation locations and pump volumes can be
determined based on the location of the sweet spots (dark
red shaded area). In this example, the first half of the well
always yields better NPV than the second half for the same
pumping volume. This discrepancy between the first and
second half of the well increases with production time.
Different volume should be pumped to generate best NPV
for different production periods. The optimal pump volume
is 1012 Mgal/stage for short production time (1 year),
around 15 Mgal per stage for medium production time (5
year), and above 25 for long production time (20 year).

Fig. 11. Effective fracture length calculated by neural network for the
whole lateral at 28 Mgal per stage and varied injection rate in Shale 2.

Fig. 11 shows the relation between effective propped length

and varying perforation position and injection rate in Shale
2 for a fixed injection volume of 28 Mgal per stage. The
perforation position is the most significant factor in
determining the effective length. For a given perforation
depth, higher fluid volumes pumped result in increased
effective fracture length. At the normalized perforation
depth of 0.5, Leff of 180200 can be achieved by pumping
2023 Mgal, but to achieve the same Leff at the normalized
perforation depth of 0.2, 3032 Mgal of fluids have to be
pumped. Fig. 11 shows optimal injection rate can be
determined at different lateral positions in Shale 2 to yield
the maximum Leff/vinj.

Fig. 12. Fractures predicted by neural network for the whole lateral at
27 bbl/min per state and varied injection volume for Shale 2.

Fig. 12 depicts Leff variations along the well with changing

perforation position and injection volume at a given
injection rate of 27 bbl/min per stage. For a fixed amount of
volume injected, the rate at which it is injected does not
seem to have much effect on Leff. Perforation position
appears to be the sole driver for a fixed fluid volume in
Shale 2. This is similar to the relation between injection rate
and Leff in Shale 1. Leff is 225260 ft for a perforation depth
between 0.35 and 0.65 and is just 120140 ft when the
normalized depth is between 0.8 and 1.

Fig. 13. 1-, 5-, and 20-year NPV predicted by neural network for the whole
lateral at 40 bbl/min per stage and varied injection volume.

SPWLA 56th Annual Logging Symposium, July 18-22, 2015

Gokaraju, D. V. and Eckert, A., 2014, Effect of mechanical

property anisotropy in shales and fracture spacing on
fracture aperture: 48th US Rock Mechanics Symposium,
Minneapolis, Minnesota. 14 June.

CONCLUSIONS
It is important to consider both elastic anisotropy and
closure pressure from the anisotropic model when predicting
fracture geometry or designing a fracture. Using an isotropic
model to predict fracture geometry in anisotropic formations
could lead to erroneous results. Overestimating the fracture
width and designing a fracture treatment based on it could
lead to a premature screenout. Underestimating the fracture
width results in selection of an undersized proppant and the
fracture performance will not realize its full potential
(Economides and Martin 2007).

Gu, H. and Leung, K.H., 1993, 3D numerical simulation of

hydraulic fracture closure with application to minifracture
analysis: Journal of Petroleum Technology, volume 45,
pages 206255.
Gu, M., Kulkarni, P., Rafiee, M., et al., 2014, Understanding
the optimum fracture conductivity for naturally fractured
shale and tight reservoirs: SPE-171648-MS, SPE/CSUR
Unconventional Resources Conference Canada, 30
September2 October.

Eeq and eq are to be used in isotropic fracture simulators to

account for elastic anisotropy and provide a time effective
and practical solution alternative to fully 3D finite element
hydraulic fracturing models without compromising on
accuracy.

Gu, M. and Mohanty, K.K., 2014, Effect of foam quality on

effectiveness of hydraulic fracturing in shales: International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Volume
70, pages 273285.

A reservoir specific neural network can provide quick

solutions to fracture prediction and production performance
for any random combination of input parameters.
Optimizing completion parameters keeping EPL and
production in mind guarantees the best return on investment.
This methodology can be extended by increasing the input
parameter values or output parameter values. For example,
NPV can be included in this method and can be used to
determine the best perforation and production strategy.
Overall, optimizing perforation strategy using neural
networks is an effective and powerful tool, which can be
used to provide an optimized solution by customizing the
workflow according to the requirements.

Gu, M., Dao, E., and Mohanty, K.K., 2015, Investigation of

ultra-light weight proppant application in shale fracturing:
Fuel, volume 150, pages 191201.
Higgins, S., Goodwin, S., Donald, A., Bratton, T., and
Tracy, G., 2008, Anisotropic stress models improve
completion design in Baxter shale: SPE-115736-MS, 2008
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, 2124 September.
Khristianovitch, S.A. and Zheltov, Y.P., 1955, Formation of
vertical fractures by means of highly viscous fluids: 4th
World Petroleum Congress, Rome, Italy, volume 2, pages
579586.

REFERENCES
Chertov, M., 2012, Closed-form solution for vertical
fracture width in anisotropic elastic formations:
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, volume 53, pages 7075.

Nordgren, R.P., 1972, Propagation of a vertical hydraulic

fracture: Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, volume
12, pages 306314.

Economides, M.J., Martin, T., 2007, Modern Fracturing:

Enhancing Natural Gas Production: Energy Tribune
Publishing, Houston, chapters 1112.

Perkins, T.K and Kern, L.R., 1961, Widths of hydraulic

fractures: Journal of Petroleum Technology, volume 13,
pages 937949.

Geertsma, J. and de Klerk, F., 1969, A rapid method of

predicting width and extent of hydraulically induced
fractures: Journal of Petroleum Technology, volume 21,
pages 1,5711,581.

10

SPWLA 56th Annual Logging Symposium, July 18-22, 2015

Phatak, A., Kresse, O., Nevvonen, O. V., Abad, C., Cohen,

C., Lafitte, V., Abivin, P., Weng, X., and England, K. W.,
2013, Optimum fluid and proppant selection for hydraulic
fracturing in shale gas reservoirs: a parametric study based
on fracturing-to-production simulations: SPE-163876-MS,
SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The
Woodlands, Texas, USA, 46 February.
Powell, R.J., McCabe, M.A., Slabaugh, B.F., Terracina,
J.M., Yaritz, J.G., and Ferrer, D. 1999, Applications of a
new, efficient hydraulic fracturing fluid system: SPE-56204PA, SPE Production & Facilities, volume 14, pages 131
138.
Quirein, J., Eid, M., and Cheng, A., 2014, Predicting the
stiffness tensor of a transversely isotropic medium when the
vertical Poissons ratio is less than the horizontal Poissons
ratio: SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, Abu
Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 1822 May.
Sani, A.M., Shah, S.N., and Baldwin, L., 2001,
Experimental investigation of xanthan foam rheology: SPE67263-MS, SPE Production and Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 2427 March.
Schoenberg, M., Muir, F., and Sayers, C., 1996, Introducing
ANNIE: A simple three-parameter anisotropic velocity
model for shales: Journal of Seismic Exploration, volume 5,
pages 3549.
Sneddon, I.N. and Berry, D.S., 1958, The Classical Theory
of Elasticity: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, volume 3,
pages 1126.
Sousa, J.L., Carter, B.J., and Ingraffea, A.R., 1993.
Numerical simulation of 3D hydraulic fracture using
Newtonian and power-law fluids: International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts, volume 30, pages 1,265-1,271.

11

SPWLA 56th Annual Logging Symposium, July 18-22, 2015

tool data processing, and well testing and sampling data

modeling and analysis. Chen holds a PhD in electrical and
computer engineering from Oklahoma State University. He
is a member of SPWLA since 2005, SPE since 2000, and
IEEE since 1998.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Deepak Gokaraju is a senior scientist with the

Integrated Interpretation Group, Formation and Reservoir
Solutions at the Halliburton Technology Center in Houston.
His role focuses on providing integrated solutions using
advanced interpretation methods. His research interests
include geomechanics, rock physics, and advanced well
logging interpretation techniques. Gokaraju holds a Masters
degree in petroleum engineering from Missouri University
of Science and Technology. Gokaraju is a member of SPE
and SPWLA.

Mehdi E. Far is a principal scientist with the

Integrated Interpretation Group at the Halliburton
Technology Center in Houston since 2014. His research
focuses on rock physics, petrophysics, advanced
interpretation methods for sonic logs, and geomechanics. He
holds a PhD in geophysics from the University of Houston.
Far is a member of SEG, SPWLA, SPE, and EAGE. He is
also a member of the SEG research committee.

Ming Gu is a senior scientist with the

Integrated Interpretation Group at the Halliburton
Technology Center in Houston since February 2014. His
current research focuses on petrophysics, geomechanics,
rock physics, formation testing, and reservoir fluid analysis.
Gu holds a PhD in petroleum engineering from the
University of Texas at Austin. Gu is a member of SPWLA.

John Quirein is the petrophysics team leader

with the Formation Evaluation Technology Group at the
Halliburton Technology Center in Houston. He has been
with Halliburton for 12 years, focusing on interpretation and
software development with a recent emphasis on gas shale
petrophysics, geochemical log interpretation, and multimineral solvers. Before joining Halliburton, Quirein worked
at Schlumberger for 10 years and Mobil for 12 years.
Quirein holds a PhD degree from the University of Houston.
He is a past SPWLA president and a current member of the
SPWLA Foundation.

Dingding Chen joined Halliburton in 2000 and

is a scientific advisor for Halliburton Technology, Fluid ID
Testing and Sampling group. He has more than 18 years of
experience in machine learning, data mining, and
applications of computational intelligence in the oil and gas
industry, especially in pulsed neutron and downhole optical

12