A Practical Guide to Interpreting Microseismic Measurements

Thousands of hydraulic fracture treatments have been monitored in the past ten years using microseismic mapping, providing a wealth of measurements that show a surprising degree of diversity in event patterns. Interpreting the microseismic data to determine the geometry and complexity of hydraulic fractures continues to be focused on visualization of the event patterns and qualitative estimates of the “stimulated volume”, which has led to wide variations and inconsistencies in interpretations. Comparing the energy input during a hydraulic fracture treatment and resultant energy released by microseismic events demonstrates that the seismic deformation is a very small portion of the total deformation. The vast majority of the energy is consumed in aseismic deformation (tensile opening) and fluid friction (Maxwell et al. 2008). Proper interpretation of microseismic measurements should account for both seismic and aseismic deformation, coupling the geomechanics of fracture opening and propagation with the shear failures that generate microseisms.