Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.

org/ at Queen's University on January 24, 2016

The use of leak-off tests as means of predicting minimum in-situ stress

Adrian J. White1,2, Martin O. Traugott1 and Richard E. Swarbrick1
1
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
2
Present address: National Centre for Petroleum Geology & Geophysics, Thebarton Campus, Adelaide University,
SA 5005, Australia (e-mail: ade_white@hotmail.com)

ABSTRACT: Leak-off tests (LOTs) or, preferably, extended leak-off tests (XLOTs),
can be successfully used in minimum in-situ stress, S3, estimations. Selecting a point
on the leak-off graph that represents the best proxy for S3 can reduce inaccuracies in
the use of LOTs as a means of determining S3. If the testing procedure is well
conducted and recorded, picking the leak-off pressure (LOP) or instantaneous
shut-in pressure (ISIP) gives equally valid estimates of S3. During testing, most of the
pressure applied in the deduction of S3 is exerted by the static mud column,
particularly in overpressured settings where higher drilling mud weights are used.
Since the mud column contributes such a large proportion of the applied pressure,
estimating S3 from tests conducted at greater depth means the observed small
difference between LOP and ISIP has even less of an effect on the deduced S3 value.
The data used in this study show that LOP closely matches ISIP when considering
multiple cycle XLOTs. It can therefore be inferred that the LOP is the fracture
re-opening pressure and hence Sh given that the assumptions made by the Kirsch
equation for wellbore failure are upheld. This study also considers the implications
for calculating the magnitude of SH.
KEYWORDS: pump + testing, reservoir pressure, Mid-Norway, stress analysis, mud weight

INTRODUCTION
It has long been a problem to calculate a reliable estimate for
the minimum in-situ stress (S3) from borehole data and hence
determine a lower boundary to leak-off pressures. Pumping
pressure test graphs (generically referred to as ‘leak-off tests’ or
‘LOTs’) are widely used for this purpose, although there are
uncertainties about which point on the graph is the better
estimate of S3. Accuracy in stress determination is important,
especially where drilling safety is concerned. Knowledge of the
contemporary stress regime enables more accurate prediction
of the maximum expected pore pressure. Through knowledge
of the pore pressure profile, appropriate mud weights can be
used to combat the presence of overpressure. Use of the
correct mud weight is especially important in highly pressured
areas where the risk of a blowout is great. The purpose of this
paper is to investigate the appropriateness of the leak-off
pressure (LOP) and instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP)
from the pumping pressure test graph when predicting the
magnitude of minimum in-situ stress.
LEAK-OFF TESTS
The term ‘leak-off test’ is collectively applied to all pumping
pressure tests where the aim is to assess the fracture strength of
the rock unit immediately underneath a newly set casing in a
well (Bell 1990). Such tests are conducted because drilling
engineers need to know the maximum permissible mud weight
that can be used without risk of damaging a well by inducing
hydraulic fractures (Engelder 1993; Jørgensen & Fejerskov
1998). Strictly speaking, pumping pressure tests are subdivided
into Formation Integrity Tests (FIT), Leak-Off Tests (LOT)
Petroleum Geoscience, Vol. 8 2002, pp. 189–193
and Extended Leak-Off Tests (XLOT). Each of the three types
of test is conducted in a similar manner, the differences being
the number of pumping cycles and the point at which pumping
is ceased. The technique involves drilling several metres
beneath the base of the casing shoe and pumping drilling mud
into the borehole while monitoring surface pump pressures for
indications of formation breakdown. Pumping drilling mud into
the borehole drives the pressure beyond that of the static mud
column, resulting in elastic expansion of the uncased hole. The
leak-off pressure (LOP) is reached when the increase in
pressure with volume of mud pumped deviates from a linear
relationship because the rock behaviour ceases to be elastic,
namely the rock no longer displays Hookean behaviour (Fig. 1).
At this point, the gradient of the pressure versus volume of
mud pumped graph decreases as mud is able to escape into
the formation below the casing shoe along pressure-induced
‘hydraulic’ fractures (Engelder 1993). Once leak-off has
occurred, pumping is halted and the borehole fluid pressures
are allowed to decay back to that of the static mud column (Bell
1990).
During XLOTs, pumping continues beyond leak-off to
ensure stable fracture propagation (Fig. 1) into the undisturbed
formation before the pressure is allowed to decay (Arnesen et al.
1997). The main difference between these tests is that XLOTs
are typically run as multiple cycle tests to ensure all effects of
rock tensile strength are removed and the minimum in-situ
stress (S3) measurement gained is as accurate as possible
(Fejerskov et al. 1996). FIT magnitudes are under-estimates of
S3 since the test is halted before the LOP is reached (Fig. 1).
FITs thus have little use in determining stress magnitude but
instead are intended to test whether the wellbore can sustain
1354-0793/02/$15.00  2002 EAGE/Geological Society of London
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ at Queen's University on January 24, 2016
190 A. J. White et al.
the stresses expected during drilling and production. Therefore,
the term leak-off test should really only be applied to tests
where leak-off is evident (Jørgensen & Fejerskov 1998).
The shortage of XLOT data means LOP values from
standard LOTs are commonly used for calculations of the
magnitude of S3. The main reason why LOTs are commonly
performed in favour of XLOTs is the cost. Drilling engineers
are also reluctant to potentially damage the well. The purpose
of the test is also an important factor: drillers are most
interested in maximum rock strength which includes tensile
strength and near-wellbore effects. Therefore leak-off tests are
usually aborted after the LOP but before formation breakdown.
While LOP values themselves are useful indicators of the
pressure required to create fractures, instantaneous shut-in
pressures (ISIPs) and fracture closure pressures (FCPs) are
both considered to be better approximations. LOPs usually
only approximate S3 because of the stress perturbation, the
hoop stress, (see Engelder 1993 for further discussion) that
occurs around the wellbore when inducing or opening a
fracture (Inglis 1913). During the first run of a pumping
pressure test, assuming no pre-existing fractures are present, the
pressure of wellbore failure is assumed to be:
Pwf = 3Sh − SH − Pp + T, (1)
where Pwf is the wellbore failure pressure (the LOP); Sh and SH
are the minimum and maximum horizontal in-situ stresses,
respectively; Pp is the pore pressure; and T is the tensile
strength of the rock.
For subsequent cycles run during an XLOT, the above
equation becomes:
Pr = 3Sh − SH − Pp, (2)
where Pr is the fracture re-opening pressure; Sh and SH are the
minimum and maximum horizontal in-situ stresses, respectively;
and Pp is the pore pressure.
During fracture re-opening, the tensile strength component
has been removed because initial formation rupture will not
recur (Bell 1990). Therefore the fracture re-opening pressure
(Pr) is equal to wellbore failure pressure (Pwf) minus the tensile
strength component (T). Both equations (1) and (2) follow
from Kirsch’s equations (Kirsch 1898) from rock mechanics.
Both assume that the rock obeys Hooke’s Law (it behaves
elastically), that the borehole is circular without major break-
outs and that there is no plastic zone surrounding the borehole
(Goodman 1980).
Fig. 1. Idealized XLOT showing LOP,
ISIP and FCP.
Once leak-off has been measured, pumping stops and the
pressure is allowed to decay. This is when the ISIP and FCP are
determined (Fig. 1). The result of halting pumping is that
pressure in the wellbore decreases because the drilling mud
invades the formation. A decrease in pressure means the walls
of the hydraulically induced fracture close and asperities (or
irregularities) touch. In this paper, such a pressure is referred to
as the ISIP and corresponds to the inflection point on the
pressure decay slope of the pressure–volume of mud pumped
graph (Fig. 1). The FCP occurs at a pressure slightly lower than
the ISIP when the fracture becomes impermeable to the mud:
essentially fluid flow through the fracture is no greater than
through the rest of the formation. Both the ISIP and FCP are
better estimates of S3 than the LOP because frictional and
tensile effects will have been removed if the fracture is allowed
to propagate away from the wellbore into the undisturbed
formation (Jørgensen & Fejerskov 1998). Therefore, a combi-
nation of the ISIP or FCP with the static mud pressure gives
the best estimate of the minimum in-situ stress (Fejerskov et al.
1996). To assess the difference between the magnitude of LOP
and ISIP, a high quality dataset of XLOTs from Mid-Norway
was used. ISIP magnitudes were chosen over FCPs because in
many of the data analysed, the inflection after pumping ceased
was easier to pick than the FCP that is determined using the
‘double-tangent’ approach (Fig. 1). The primary aim of the
study is to assess whether there is significant and meaningful
difference in the magnitude of S3 derived from the LOP or ISIP
respectively.
STRESS DETERMINATION FROM LEAK-OFF
TESTS
Full LOTs and XLOTs are rarely conducted, and the pressure
decline following leak-off is not universally monitored (Enever
et al. 1996). Therefore most determinations of S3 rely on
addition of the LOP (the excess pressure measurement found
during the conducting of pumping pressure tests – Fig. 1) value
to the pressure exerted by the static mud column. Rock
mechanical theory (see above) states that in order to create a
new fracture, the tensile strength of the rock plus the stress
perturbation must be overcome and this pressure is reflected in
the magnitude of the LOP. Where full XLOTs are conducted,
a pressure more analogous to S3 comes from the ISIP or FCP
that are ideally measured from later cycles in an XLOT. When
interpreting an XLOT graph, the ISIP is easier to pick than the
FCP and is therefore the favoured approximation for S3 of
many authors (Breckels & van Eekelen 1982; Arnesen et al.
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ at Queen's University on January 24, 2016

Using leak-off tests to predict minimum stress 191

Fig. 2. An example of a multi-cycle XLOT from Mid-Norway.

1997). The magnitude of minimum in-situ stress is calculated
using:
S3 = [pressureexcess + (weightmud  TVDKB  0.0981)], (3)
where S3 is the minimum in-situ stress (bar); pressureexcess is either
the LOP, ISIP or FCP (bar); weightmud is the weight [pressure]
of static mud column (s.g.); TVDKB is the vertical depth
relative to kelly bushing (m); and 0.0981 is a constant for
converting to bars.
Explanations of where to pick the LOP, ISIP and FCP used
to calculate S3 in equation (3) are shown in the idealized XLOT
record shown in Figure 1. It is probable that uncertainties in the
weightmud value used in equation (3) arise as the value is often
derived by measuring the density of a mud sample at the
surface. This is despite the availability of downhole wireline
tools that can make direct measurements of the static mud
column pressure at the depth of the test. Errors in this pressure
calculation could arise due to a number of factors. Rock
spalling from the formation walls or drilled cuttings would alter
the mud density if it was not circulated to remove these
fragments. Fluid loss into the surrounding formations would
increase the mud density and where tests are conducted without
the use of a pressurized mud cap, the effect of air pressure adds
to the mud pressure (Fejerskov et al. 1996).
comprised spreadsheet records listing downhole pumping
pressure (the excessive pressure above the pressure exerted by
the mud column – Fig. 1) versus time for each test cycle.
Cross-plotting pressure against time for each cycle of each test
allowed both LOP and ISIP to be hand picked from the
subsequently generated graphs and combined with the pressure
exerted by the static mud column to calculate Sh using equation
(3). Only those tests where it was possible to interpret a LOP
and ISIP value from the leak-off graph were chosen for the
analyses since investigations rely on both measurements to
draw a comparison between LOP-derived and ISIP-derived Sh.
RESULTS
Plotting the LOP versus ISIP value (Fig. 3) reveals how close
the two values are to each other in many of the extended
leak-off test cycles. There is a slight scatter about the line of
equivalence (‘one-to-one line’) but the statistics, y=0.95x
2.11
and r2=0.977, reveal the relationship to be very good none the
less. The same data are plotted by cycle number in Figure 4.

METHODS AND DATA: USING LOT AND XLOT

GRAPHS TO CALCULATE MINIMUM IN-SITU
STRESS
Unfortunately, real data are not as easy to interpret as idealized
pumping pressure records would suggest. Figure 2 is a good
example of a four-cycle test record from the Norne Field in
Mid-Norway. Whilst easier to interpret than many of the graphs
used in this study of XLOTs (it is possible to pick the FCP) the
test is typical of the Mid-Norway data. For each cycle the LOP
and ISIP are shown.
This study had 57 XLOTs available for investigation into the Fig. 3. Cross-plot comparing the magnitude of LOP and ISIP (MPa)
difference between LOP and ISIP. Each individual XLOT directly from the XLOT graphs.
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ at Queen's University on January 24, 2016
192 A. J. White et al.
Fig. 4. Cross-plot comparing the magnitude of LOP and ISIP (MPa)
directly from XLOTs plotted by cycle number.
Fig. 5. Cross-plot showing the magnitude of S3 as derived from LOP
and ISIP (MPa) when combined with the mud column pressure.
The greatest amount of scatter either side of the one-to-one
line occurs for first cycles of XLOTs. Subsequent cycles show
data points plot closer to this line of equivalence. Essentially,
the LOP and ISIP magnitude converge. Comparing the LOP-
derived and ISIP-derived magnitudes for minimum in-situ stress
calculated using equation (3) (Fig. 5) shows little difference in
the Sh values. Because the vast majority of the data fall between
the 5% error lines, the difference is shown to be less than 5%.
All data points fall on or close to the one-to-one relationship,
although it is accepted that using the LOP generally produces a
marginal overestimate for S3. Such an overestimate is expected
because the LOP value itself contains a component of rock
tensile strength during initial wellbore failure and a component
of stress perturbation around the wellbore. Further explana-
tions for these phenomena can be found in Inglis (1913) and
Engelder (1993). It is generally accepted that the ISIP value
itself equals S3 (Bell 1990; R. Hillis pers. comm. 2001). The
linear regression line through the data (Fig. 5) having a negative
y-axis intercept also indicates that LOP-derived values are
slightly in excess of ISIP-derived values but on average, the
difference is less than 2 MPa or 20 bar.
Both sets of derived S3 magnitudes for the Mid-Norway data
are plotted on a multiple well stress–depth plot in Figure 6. The
LOP-derived and ISIP-derived values plot almost on top of
one another. This observation reaffirms the belief that whether
LOP or ISIP is chosen to combine with the static mud column
pressure, little difference is made to the derived minimum in-situ
stress magnitude.
Fig. 6. Stress–depth plot showing the difference between LOP-
derived and ISIP-derived S3 magnitude (MPa).
DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Combining the evidence displayed in Figure 3 through to
Figure 6 indicates that LOP and ISIP are virtually the same in
the dataset for Mid-Norway. Consequently there is very little
difference between the magnitude of minimum in-situ stress
calculated from LOP or ISIP respectively. Figure 4 shows that
for re-opening cycles of XLOTs, the LOP and ISIP values
converge towards a 1:1 ratio. The inference is that within
re-opening cycles, components of friction, rock tensile strength
and stress perturbations seen in the wellbore failure cycle have
been removed (Engelder 1993; Fejerskov et al. 1996). Calcula-
tions also show that the greatest component of pressure applied
in the determination of Sh comes from the static pressure of the
mud column. The large influence of the static mud column
suggests that for tests from greater depths an even larger
percentage of the Sh estimation comes from the static mud
column pressure. Therefore the excess pressure contribution
(the LOP or ISIP value) becomes proportionally smaller. Such
a result implies that the conclusion – adding either LOP or ISIP
to the pressure exerted by the static mud column to create an
estimate for S3 produces the same result – becomes more
appropriate at greater depths.
Considering the results above and Figure 3 showing the good
correlation between LOP and ISIP, it can be stated that within
the bounds of analytical error, LOP equals ISIP. In re-opening
cycles of XLOTs the LOP equals the fracture re-opening
pressure (Pr). Following on from this, it can be inferred that Pr
is also the ISIP-derived pressure and is therefore Sh. This has
implications for the magnitude of SH. By considering XLOT
re-opening cycles so that the tensile strength component is
removed, Bredehoeft et al. (1976) suggest that the magnitude of
SH may be determined from the Kirsch equation:
Pr = 3Sh − SH − Pp (4)
Substituting Pr=Sh into the above equation gives:
SH = 2Sh − Pp (5)
Therefore, these extended leak-off test data where LOP
equals the ISIP in multiple cycle tests can be used to deduce
information on the magnitude of the maximum horizontal
in-situ stress (SH) in Mid-Norway. It is important to point out
that for these equations to apply to these data, the assumptions
on rock properties and borehole shape stated above must apply
here.
 Downloaded from http://pg.lyellcollection.org/ at Queen's University on January 24, 2016

Using leak-off tests to predict minimum stress 193

There is an ongoing debate as to whether XLOTs really
cause damage to the wellbore. Considering Figure 2, it can be
seen that the formation breakdown pressure (FBP) decreases
from 162 bar in the wellbore failure cycle (the first cycle) to
143 bar in the third re-opening cycle (the fourth cycle). The
suggestion here is that this 19 bar (1.9 MPa) decrease represents
either the removal of the tensile strength component or the
yielding of the formation. Either way, the wellbore appears to
have sustained damage. Further investigations using the other
AJW was funded by NERC CASE studentship (# GT04/98/ES/68)
with Norsk Hydro. This paper benefited from personal communi-
cation with Torsten Jørgensen and Linn Arnesen (Norsk Hydro),
Terry Engelder (The Pennsylvania State University) and Richard
Hillis, Jerry Meyer and Mark Tingay (University of Adelaide). Linn
Arnesen (Norsk Hydro) and Lars Wensaas (Statoil) are thanked for
the provision of data. The comments of two anonymous reviewers
and the Editorial Board helped to clarify the paper.
CONVERSION FACTORS
XLOT data are beyond the scope of this paper.  1 MPa=10 bar
 1 bar=14.5 psi
 1 s.g.=1 g cm
3
CONCLUSIONS  1 s.g.=0.0981 bar m
1
This study investigates the difference between the leak-off
pressure (LOP) and instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) using
multiple cycle extended leak-off test data from Mid-Norway.
Analyses show the difference in the magnitude of minimum
in-situ stress calculated from LOP and ISIP is small. The
variations between LOP-derived and ISIP-derived Sh magni-
tudes are less than 5% (Fig. 5). An implication of this is that
LOP ] ISIP for Mid-Norway. The pressure exerted by the
static mud column contributes the majority of the Sh magni-
tude. The significance of this contribution to the magnitude of
Sh has implications for the estimate of minimum in-situ stress
from tests conducted at greater depth. Tests from greater depth
reveal the observed small difference between LOP and ISIP
becomes an even less significant proportion of Sh.
Applying the Kirsch equations to the Mid-Norway data with
the relevant assumptions shows another important result.
Given the contemporary stress situation in Mid-Norway, it can
be demonstrated that the fracture re-opening pressure (Pr) is
equal to the minimum in-situ stress: Pr=Sh. From this informa-
tion, the magnitude of SH can be deduced from multiple cycle
XLOTs when the pore pressure is known. No pore pressure
data were available to this study in wells where XLOTs were
conducted.
A systematic decrease in the formation breakdown pressure
from the first through to the fourth cycle in a XLOT (Fig. 2)
suggests either a loss of tensile strength or formation yield.
Damage has implications for the petroleum industry and in-situ
stress prediction.
Received 7 June 2001; revised typescript accepted 14 February 2002
 1 s.g.=0.12 ppg
REFERENCES
Arnesen, L., Dart, C., Telnes, N. & Larsen, B.-T. 1997. Estimating fracture
gradients and minimum horizontal stress in the Northern Viking Graben. E&P
Research Division Technical Report, Norsk Hydro Produksjon a.s.
Bell, J.S. 1990. Investigating stress regimes in sedimentary basins using
information from oil industry wireline logs and drilling records. In: Hurst,
A. (ed.) Geological Applications of Wireline Logs. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 48, 305–325.
Breckels, I.M. & van Eekelen, H.A.M. 1982. Relationship between horizontal
stress and depth in sedimentary basins. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
September, 2191–2199.
Bredehoeft, J.D., Wolff, R.G., Keys, W.S. & Schuter, E. 1976. Hydraulic
fracturing to determine the regional in-situ stress field, Piceance Basin,
Colorado. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 87, 250–258.
Enever, J.R., Yassir, N., Willoughby, D.R. & Addis, M.A. 1996. Recent
experience with extended leak-off tests for in-situ stress measurements in
Australia. Australian Petroleum Exploration & Production Association Journal, 36,
528–535.
Engelder, T. 1993. Stress Regimes in the Lithosphere. Princeton University Press.
Fejerskov, M., Bratli, R. K., Singelstad, A. & Jørgensen, T. 1996. How well do
conventional leak-off tests predict in-situ rock stresses? Norwegian Rock
Mechanics Symposium (Bergmekanikkdagan), 22 November, Oslo,
Norway.
Goodman, R.E. 1980. Introduction to Rock Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons.
Inglis, C.E. 1913. Stresses in a plate due to the presence of cracks and sharp
corners. Transactions of the Institute of Naval Architecture, 55, 219–241.
Jørgensen, T. & Fejerskov, M. 1998. Leak-Off Tests: How to extract
important in-situ stress information from a test originally designed for
another purpose. SPE/ISRM Eurock ‘98, Trondheim, Norway, 8–10 July.
Kirsch, G. 1898. Die Theorie der Elastizität und die Bedürfnisse der
Festigheitslehre. Zeitschrift des Vereines Deutscher Ingenieure, 42, 797–807.