Determining Optimum Well

Locations & Well Paths

Predicting or delineating fracture sweet
spots with high fracture intensity and/or
good connectedness
Predicting or delineating dominant open
fracture direction to plan deviated well
paths to encounter the best fractures
Plan well paths that optimize fracture &
matrix properties
Controls on Fracture Intensity
Petrophysical/ Mechanical
Composition
Porosity
Grain Size
Fabric
Geometric/Strain
Bed Thickness
Structural Position
Any parameter that
strengthens or embrittles a rock
will tend toincrease its
fracture intensity
Nelson (1985)
Mechanical Stratigraphy
Subtle changes in rock character
(petrologic & petrophysical) control rock
deformation.
Variations in deformation type and
intensity mimic subtle changes in rock
character.
Nelson (1985)
Mechanical Predictions
Relative rock strength can be used to
predict fracture intensity.
Stronger rocks generally contain closer
spaced fractures.
Above usually works because most
shallow reservoir rocks are brittle &
show little variation in stain at failure.
(fracture toughness)
Nelson (1985)
Composition
Rocks composed of predominately strong
and brittle components are stronger and
generally contain closer spaced fractures
Nelson (1985)
Sun (2001)
Fracture Intensity as a Function of Rock Type (Mechanical Properties)
Cooper & Wharbaton Basins,
S. Australia
Strength vs Composition
Dev. Antrim Sh
Michigan Basin
Strength increases with
% brittle minerals
Nelson (1985)
Fracture Intensity Variation with Composition
Limestone vs Dolomite
Paleozoic Carbonates
Sawtooth Mnts. Montana
Low
Intensity
High
Intensity
Ward (1987)
Outcrop Fracture Intensity vs % Dolomite
Rock Properties vs Depth, Texaco 17#2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
17200 17300 17400 17500 17600 17700 17800 17900 18000 18100
Depth, ft
R
o
c
k

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Young's Mod. E06psi
Poisson's Ratio
Youngs Modulus and Poissons Ratio
Logs for a Well in the Permian Basin
Porosity
Lower porosity rocks are stronger and
more brittle and generally contain closer
spaced fractures
Nelson (1985)
Nelson (1985)
Ward (1987)
Fracture Intensity vs Porosity
Ls, Tectonic Fracures
All Fracture Intensity vs AH Depth, MOW-4 Core
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2
3
0
0
2
4
0
0
2
5
0
0
AH Depth, m
A
l
l

F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e

I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

#
/
0
.
5

m
Fracture Intensity Curve
(core based, 89% cemented)
SS Carb
MFI = 0.483 MFI = 1.003
Fracture Intensity vs Porosity with Depth, MOW-4 Core
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
7
6
0
0
7
6
5
0
7
7
0
0
7
7
5
0
7
8
0
0
7
8
5
0
7
9
0
0
7
9
5
0
8
0
0
0
8
0
5
0
8
1
0
0
Measured Depth, ft
W
h
o
l
e

C
o
r
e

P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y
,

%
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
A
l
l

F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e

I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

#
/
0
.
5

f
t
Porosity, %
FIC, #/0.5 ft
Inverse Relationship Between Porosity &
Fracture Intensity
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e

I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

v
s

P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y

w
i
t
h

D
e
p
t
h
,

M
O
W
-
4

C
o
r
e
0
.
0
5
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
5
.
0
2
0
.
0
2
5
.
0
3
0
.
0
3
5
.
0
7600
7650
7700
7750
7800
7850
7900
7950
8000
8050
8100
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

D
e
p
t
h
,

f
t
Whole Core Porosity,
%
00
.
2
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
8
11
.
2
1
.
4
All Fracture Intensity,
#/0.5 ft
P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y
,

%
F
I
C
,

#
/
0
.
5

f
t
Inverse Relationship Between Porosity & Fracture Intensity
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

D
e
p
t
h
,

f
t

Whole Core Porosity, 0-35%
Carbonate
Grain Size
Finer grained rocks are generally stronger
and more brittle and generally contain
closer spaced fractures
Nelson (1985)
Strength vs Grain Size, Navajo Ss
Nelson (1985)
Ward (1987)
Fracture Intensity vs Grain Size
Ls, Carbonates
Bed Thickness
For bed-contained fractures, closer
spaced fractures in thinner beds
Nelson (1985)
After Sowers (1970)
Fracture Spacing vs Bed Thickness
Berry, Stearns & Friedman
Fracture Spacing vs Bed Thickness in Pacoota Ss at Palm Valley
Field Australia