Unidad 6

Reservoir Geomechanics
In situ stress and rock mechanics applied to reservoir processes!

"
"
Mark D. " Zoback
Professor of " Geophysics
"
"
"
Week 3 – Lecture 6
Rock Strength – Chapter 4 Part 2
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu#
Overview
✔!
✔!
✔!
✔!
✔!
2
Outline
Section 1
•  Friction and Fault Strength
•  Critically-Stressed Crust
Section 2
•  Predicting Stress Magnitudes
Section 3
•  Rate and State Friction
3
Coulomb Criterion – Frictional Sliding
Sliding occurs when:!
τ Coefficient of Friction!
=µ (sliding friction)!
σn
Equation 4.39 – pg.123!
Coulomb Failure Function:!

(So ∼ 0)! !CFF = τ - µ σn !
Effective Normal Stress:!

σn = Sn -Pp!
4
Injection Triggered Seismicity
Waste Injection !
Denver Arsenal!
Fluid Injection!
Rangely Oil Field!
5
Maximum Friction for a Variety of Rock Types
6
Highly Stress in Intraplate Areas
Hydrostatic Pore Pressure
Townend and Zoback (2001)
How Faulting Keeps the Crust Strong!

7
Lithospheric Dynamics and the
Critically Stressed Crust
8
The Context of Concern: In Most Places, The
Brittle Crust is in Frictional Failure Equilibrium
1. Intraplate Earthquakes Occur Nearly Everywhere

9
Reservoir “Induced” Seismicity
2. Seismicity is Often Triggered by the Extremely

Small Pressure Perturbation Associated with
Reservoir Impoundment
10
3. Deep Borehole Stress Measurements
Zoback and Harjes (1997) 11

Are Stress Magnitudes Lower in Stable Areas?
Reservoir Triggered Seismicity – No!

12
Slip on Active Faults Perturb Stress Field
at Multiple Scales
13
Modelling Fault-Induced Stress at the Wellbore Wall
Shamir and Zoback (1992)

Fractal-like Stress Fluctuations - SAFOD
depth (m)
-90 0 90 -90 0 90 -90 0 90
SHmax azimuth
15
Cumulative Gutenberg-Richter Relation
log$($N$≥$M)$=$a$–$bM$
Compares quantity of
earthquakes vs. magnitude
Cumulative Number (N≥M)#
Southern !
~20#
California!
“b-value” related to mechanics
of earthquake scaling;
5.5# typically, b≈1 for “natural”
events
Magnitude#
Southern$California,$1944<1990$(Knopoﬀ,$2000)$
16
Cumulative Gutenberg-Richter Relation
log$($N$≥$M)$=$a$–$bM$
Compares quantity of
earthquakes vs. magnitude
Cumulative Number (N≥M)#
Southern !
4.5#
California!
“b-value” related to mechanics
of earthquake scaling;
typically, b≈1 for “natural”
events
Magnitude#
Southern$California,$1944<1990$(Knopoﬀ,$2000)$
17
Stress Fluctuations Scale Like Earthquakes
Amy Day Lewis, Mark Zoback and Stephen Hickman, Scale invariant stress orientations
and seismicity rates near the San Andreas Fault, Geophys. Res. Lett, v. 37, L24304, doi:
10.1029/2010GL045025, 2010!
18
What Does a Critically-Stressed Faults Mean for
Fluid Injection?
19
A Recent Increase in Intraplate Seismicity
Prague, OK!
Prague, OK*
3 M5+ Eqs!
Nov.
Nov., 2011
2011! M 5.7
!
Zoback (2012)!
About 150,000 Class II EPA Injection Wells Operating in the US!

20
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu# Why the Increase in Seismicity?!
A Recent Increase in Intraplate Seismicity
Prague, OK!
Prague, OK*
3 M5+ Eqs!
Nov.
Nov., 2011
2011! M 5.7
!
Zoback (2012)!
Ellsworth (2013)!
About 150,000 Class II EPA Injection Wells Operating in the US! 21
Why the Increase in Seismicity?!
State of Crustal Stress in Frictional Equilibrium
Maximum stress difference in a sizeable volume of rock is controlled by:
•  Frictional strength of ‘well oriented’ pre-existing faults
•  Maximum differential stress in-situ cannot exceed fault strength
22
Relationship Between Stress State and Fault Slip
Normal faults
trend parallel to
Normal
SHmax
Strike-slip faults
trend about
Strike-Slip
±30° from SHmax
Reverse faults
trend
Reverse perpendicular
to SHmax
Modified Figuren 5.1!

23
Triggered Earthquakes Guy, Arkansas
24
Outline
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
25
Frictional Faulting Theory
Friction
µ$ defines both
limiting
stress
magnitudes
and
orientation of
faults likely
to slip
26
State of Crustal Stress in Frictional Equilibrium
Maximum stress difference in a sizeable volume of rock is controlled by:

•  Frictional strength of ‘well oriented’ pre-existing faults
•  Maximum differential stress in-situ cannot exceed fault strength
σ1 ! 2 #2
= µ +1 + µ $ = 3.1 for µ = 0.6
σ3 "
27
Frictional Strength of the Crest
28
Stress States Associated with
Faults in Frictional Equilibrium
Frictional Faulting Theory: σ 1 S1 − Pp " 2 $

2

= = # µ +1 + µ %
σ 3 S3 − Pp
Reverse Faulting: SH max − Pp " 2 $

2
= # µ +1 + µ %
Equation 4.47 – pg.133! Sv − Pp
Normal Faulting: Sv − Pp " 2 $

2
= # µ +1 + µ %
Equation 4.45 – pg.133! Sh min − Pp
Strike-Slip Faulting: SH max − Pp " 2 $

2
= # µ +1 + µ %
Equation 4.46 – pg.133! Sh min − Pp
2
! µ 2 +1 + µ # = 3.1 for µ = 0.6
" $
Equation 4.44 – pg.132! 29
Range of Stress Magnitudes
Hydrostatic Pp
Critical SHmax!
Critical Shmin!
Critical SHmax!
S v − Pp
= 3.1
Sh min − Pp
SHmax − Pp
S v − Pp = 3.1
Sh min = + Pp Sh min − Pp
3.1 SHmax − Pp
Sh min ≈ 0.6S v ( )
SHmax = 3.1 Sh min − Pp + Pp
S v − Pp
= 3.1
( )
SHmax = 3.1 S v − Pp + Pp
€
Stress Magnitudes at Depth as Constrained by
Frictional Strength of the Crust
Figure 4.31 a – pg.138!
31
Limiting cases Anderson’s Classification
Radial Extension Normal faulting (NF)
Sv >> SHmax = Shmin Sv > SHmax > Shmin
Intermediate cases
Normal/Strike-Slip faulting
Sv = SHmax > Shmin
Strike-slip faulting (SS)

SHmax > Sv > Shmin
Strike-Slip/Reverse faulting
SHmax > Sv = Shmin
Radial Compression Reverse faulting (RF)

SHmax >> Shmin = Sv SHmax > Shmin > Sv
Stress Magnitudes are
Dependent Upon Pore Pressure
Figure 4.30 – pg.136!
33
Stress Magnitudes are Dependent Upon
Pore Pressure
Figure 4.31 b – pg.138!
34
Range of Stress Magnitudes
Overpressure at Depth
Critical SHmax!
Critical Shmin! Critical SHmax!
Sv − Pp
= 3.1
Sh min − Pp
Sv − Pp SH max − Pp
Sh min = + Pp = 3.1
3.1 Shmin − Pp SH max − Pp
= 3.1
SH max = 3.1(Shmin − Pp ) + Pp Sv − Pp
SH max = 3.1(Sv − Pp )+ Pp
Limiting cases Anderson’s Classification
Radial Extension Normal faulting (NF)
Sv >> SHmax = Shmin Sv > SHmax > Shmin
Intermediate cases
Normal/Strike-Slip faulting
Sv = SHmax > Shmin
Strike-slip faulting (SS)

SHmax > Sv > Shmin
Strike-Slip/Reverse faulting
SHmax > Sv = Shmin
Radial Compression Reverse faulting (RF)

SHmax >> Shmin = Sv SHmax > Shmin > Sv
Outline
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
37
Slowly Slipping Faults During Hydraulic Fracturing
Microseismic fault patches!
MW
-1.0
MW
-1.5
MW
-2.0
4000 ft
~100 m!
~200 m!
N
~100 m!
Map View Typical rock volume influenced
by one fracturing stage!
4000 ft
Das, I. and M.D Zoback (2013), Long-period, long-duration seismic events during hydraulic
stimulation of shale and tight gas reservoirs — Part 1: Waveform characteristics, Geophysics,
v.78, no.6, p. KS107–KS118.
Long Period Long Duration Seismic Events
SHmax
Recording
Well 2
Slowly Slipping Faults
Recording 39
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu# Well 1 SHmax
Rate and State Friction
Kohli, A. H. and M.D. Zoback (2013), Frictional properties of shale reservoir

rocks, Journal of Geophysical Research, Solid Earth, v. 118, 1-17, doi:
10.1002/jgrb. 50346
40
Rate and State Friction
−3
x 10
1
Haynesville Light Haynesville Dark
Barnett Light Barnett Dark
Eagleford Light Eagleford Dark
0.8
10
Coefficient of Friction
0.6
(a - b)
5
0.4
Unstable Stick-Slip/Eqs Stable Sliding/Creep
Stable
0
0.2
0 −5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Clay + Organic Content (wt%)
41

Unidad 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unidad 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reservoir Geomechanics

In situ stress and rock mechanics applied to reservoir processes!

Sliding occurs when:!

Coulomb Failure Function:!

Equation 4.40 – pg.124!

Effective Normal Stress:!

Townend and Zoback (2001)

How Faulting Keeps the Crust Strong!

1. Intraplate Earthquakes Occur Nearly Everywhere

2. Seismicity is Often Triggered by the Extremely

Zoback and Harjes (1997) 11

Reservoir Triggered Seismicity – No!

Shamir and Zoback (1992)

-90 0 90 -90 0 90 -90 0 90

About 150,000 Class II EPA Injection Wells Operating in the US!

Modified Figuren 5.1!

Maximum stress difference in a sizeable volume of rock is controlled by:

Frictional Faulting Theory: σ 1 S1 − Pp " 2 $

Equation 4.43 – pg.132!

Reverse Faulting: SH max − Pp " 2 $

Normal Faulting: Sv − Pp " 2 $

Strike-Slip Faulting: SH max − Pp " 2 $

Figure 4.31 a – pg.138!

Strike-slip faulting (SS)

Radial Compression Reverse faulting (RF)

Figure 4.30 – pg.136!

Figure 4.31 b – pg.138!

Critical Shmin! Critical SHmax!

Strike-slip faulting (SS)

Radial Compression Reverse faulting (RF)

Slowly Slipping Faults

Kohli, A. H. and M.D. Zoback (2013), Frictional properties of shale reservoir

You might also like