Geomechanics Course BAKER HUGHES 2007 PDF

Introduction to
Petroleum Geomechanics
August 27 - 31, 2007
El Tigre, Venezuela
© 2005 Baker Hughes Incorporated All rights reserved.

Course Objectives
To provide a broad overview of the

fundamentals of Geomechanics.
To demonstrate the use of these
fundamentals to address oil field problems
associated with the drilling and production of
hydrocarbon resources.
Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

Course Outline
1. Introduction to Geomechanics
what, why, where
fundamentals
2. Rock Mechanical Property Characterization
static versus dynamic
Logging of Mechanical Properties (LMP)
3. In-situ Stress Characterization
pore pressure estimation
subsurface stresses – magnitude & direction
4. Geomechanics Applications
wellbore stability
sand/solid production
hydraulic fracturing
reservoir compaction
Geomechanics Applications

Outline
• What is Geomechanics?
• Why Geomechanics?
• Geomechanics Applications
• How to Apply Geomechanics?
• Geomechanics Application Examples
• The Value of Geomechanics

What is Geomechanics?
STRESS vs. STRENGTH

RES
IS T
Z O EN C
U ER IA
ESF
A branch of engineering mechanics concerned with the response of

geologic materials to the force field of their physical environment.

What is Geomechanics?
(Rock Mechanics)
• Theoretical and applied science of the

mechanical behavior of geological materials.
• A branch of mechanics concerned with the
response of geological materials to the force
field of their physical environment.
• Used in civil, petroleum and mining engineering
and any discipline dealing with geological
material’s mechanical behavior.

What is Petroleum Geomechanics?
Science and knowledge about the mechanical

behavior of reservoir and overburden formations
during different phases of petroleum operations.
Petroleum geomechanics enables us to predict

wellbore and reservoir deformations/failures
and generate engineered solutions for optimal
field developments.

Why Geomechanics?
z Today’s reservoirs are more difficult to

access and develop:
– “Brown-field” reservoirs approach depletion and many are
compartmentalized
– Onshore reservoirs are deeper and manifest high-pressure,
high-temperature (HPHT) conditions
– Offshore reservoirs are in deep water and at greater depth
– Heavy oil recovery require high temperature operations
z Geomechanics is a key enabling technology

for exploring and exploiting today’s
technically challenged reservoirs (tectonics,
deepwater, HPHT, brown, heavy oil).
z Advanced technology is required to optimally
drill, complete and produce these reservoirs.
Why Geomechanics?
Total E&P Costs
Drilling costs related
• In 1997 = $82 billion
to borehole instability
Drilling Costs = $3.2 billion
= $32 billion$6.4 B
• In 2002 All major operating companies agreed

on 10 to 15 % of the drilling budget goes
2002 SPE-ATW on Real-time Wellbore Stability to wellbore stability issues !!
• In 2004 Geopressure and borehole stability problems

are estimated to cost the industry $8 billions
every year !!
Offshore Magazine - Dodson Jan.2004

………but missing production can be equally expensive!!
Applications of Geomechanics
$
NPV ) Borehole stability/well planning
) Solid production/completion strategy
Business ) Drilling efficiency enhancement
Drivers
) Reservoir compaction/subsidence
) Hydraulic fracturing/stimulation
Reservoir Properties ) Cuttings re-injection/remediation
) Well placement in fractured reservoirs
Log/Core Measurements ) Fully-coupled reservoir simulation

Geomechanics Applications –
Summary
Borehole Integrity Management Sand Control Solutions
Wellbore Stability Screen Completion
Wellbore Strengthening Screenless Completion
mud weight windows critical drawdown pressure
mud composition/formulation oriented perforation
wellbore trajectory selective perforation
casing program wellbore/perforation trajectory
expandable screen
gravel pack
Reservoir Management Waste Management

Reservoir Compaction Drilling Waste (drilling fluids, cuttings)
[production induced] Production Waste (produced water, CO2)
stress-dependent rock properties cap rock integrity
pore volume compressibility fault seal integrity
well/completion integrity fracture containment
platform subsidence fracture morphology/geometry
drive mechanism candidate well selection (geomechanics)
pressure maintenance
time-lapsed seismics
Production Enhancement Complex Geology Environments

Productivity Improvement (well-based) Fault Seal Integrity
Recovery Improvement (field-wide) Critically Stressed Fracture
dynamic under-balanced perforation exploration strategy
hydraulic fracturing stimulation injection pressure
flood directivity production management (depressurization)
oriented perforation well placement in fracture reservoir
stress vs. permeability anisotropy

Values of Geomechanics – A
Success Story

Value of Geomechanics –
Baker Hughes
z Generating pull through revenue
z Value boosting for logging technologies
z Help generating needs for quality formation data
z Improve client relationships
z Quality assurance
z Understanding market and technology needs/requirements
z Increase communication with sister divisions
z Generate direct revenues for BHI/BA
z Secure the client - measured by # tenders

Fundamentals of
Geomechanics

Outline
z Basic Concepts of Stress and Strain

z Principal Stresses
z Mohr’s Circle
z Elasticity and Elastic Parameters
z Failure Strength Parameters
z Failure Theories
z Effective Stress Concept

Definitions and Terminology
Stress and Strain

♦ Stress (σ or τ): Defines the force field to which a
material is subjected. Stress is a tensor with three
orthogonal principal directions in a three
dimensional coordinate system.
♦ Strain (ε or γ): Defines the deformation of a

material in a force (stress) field. Strain is also a
tensor with three orthogonal principal directions in
a three dimensional coordinate system.

Stress (σ) Units of pressure (or force/area),

e.g., psi, MPa, bar, etc.
c.s. area Stress on the plane

F
σ = F/A
a A
F
b A’ σ = F/A’
F
c A’’ σ = F/A’’

Strain (ε) P
Δl
l l
Δl Change in Dimension 1
ε= =
l Original Dimension
Un-deformed Deformed
• Defines the deformation of a material in a stress field.

• Relative change in material dimension.
Unit or dimensionless

Stress (σ)
Fp
Fn
• Normal Stress –normal or perpendicular –
F
σn= Fn/A (e.g., σx , σy, etc.)
• Shear Stress – parallel to the plane –
τ = Fp/A (e.g., τxy, τxz, etc.)
• Stress & Strain – vector quantities (on a single plane)

• Magnitude (amount)
• Direction
2D State of Stress σy σyy

2 Normal stresses
2 Shear stresses 4 comp.
For no rotation & translation: τyx
τxy = τyx τxy
⎧σ xx ⎫ σxx
⎪ ⎪
(σ )2D = ⎨σ yy ⎬ σx
⎪τ ⎪
⎩ xy ⎭
τij = Shear stress acting on a plane perpendicular to i and
in a direction parallel to j
General 3D State of Stress σyy
3 Normal stresses
9 comp.
6 Shear stresses τyx
τyz
τxy = τyx
τxy
τyz = τzy τzy
σxx
τzx = τxz
τzx τxz
Stress Tensor: total 9 components,
with 6 independents.
3 normal + 3 shear stresses
σzz
Stress Tensor
σxx τxy τxz σ11 σ12 σ13
(σ) = τyx σyy τyz = σ21 σ22 σ23
τxz τzy σzz σ31 σ32 σ33
σ1
σ1 σ4 σ5 σ2
= σ4 σ2 σ6 = σ3 = σij = [σ]Τ
σ5 σ6 σ3 σ4
σ5
2D System
σ6
Stress Transformation - 2D
For the equilibrium of the body: σy
∑ Fx = ∑ (σ • A )x = 0
y
τxy
∑ Fy = ∑ (σ • A )y = 0 σx
σ
θ
τxy
σx
τxy
τ
θ
x
τxy
σx +σy σx −σy σy
σ=( 2
)+( 2
) cos 2θ + τ xy sin 2θ
σy −σx
τ=( 2
) sin 2θ + τ xy cos 2θ

Other expressions for normal stress on a

plane:
σ = σxx cos2θ + σyy sin2θ + τxy sin2θ
σ = σxx cos2θ + σyy sin2θ + 2τxy sinθ cosθ

Exercise Problems
σyy
Given:
Y
σxx = 100 psi τxy
σyy = 60 psi σ
τxy
σxx θ σxx
τxy = 40 psi
τ
τxy
θ
(note: sin30 = cos60 = -cos120 = 1/2
τxy X
cos30 = sin60 = sin120 = √3/2)
σyy
Determine normal (σ) and shear stresses (τ) for:
1) θ = 30 degrees σ = 124.6, τ = 2.7
2) θ = 60 degrees σ = 104.6, τ = -37.3
Outline
9 Basic Concepts of Stress and Strain

ÎPrincipal Stresses & Mohr’s Circle
z Elasticity and Elastic Parameters
z Failure Theories

Principal Stresses
σ1 σ2 σ3 σv σH σh
Normal stresses on planes where shear stress is zero
σ1 > σ2 > σ3
σ1 = σ v
(Max. > Intermediate > Minimum)
σ2 = σ H σ3 = σ h
Other Notations:
σH = σHmax
σh = σhmin

Principal Stresses - 2D
σy −σx x’
τ=( 2
) sin 2θ + τ xy cos 2θ =0
σy
y
2 τxy y’ τxy
tan 2θ =
σx - σy τxy
σ σx
σx
θ1, θ2 are the solutions τ=0
(θ2 = θ1 + 90) τxy
θ1
Mutually orthogonal x
τxy
σy
σ1 = ( σx +σy
2 )+( σ x −σ y
2 ) cos 2θ1 + τxy sin 2θ1
σ2 = ( σx +σy
2 )+( σ x −σ y
2 ) cos 2θ2 + τ xy sin 2θ2
Exercise Problem
Stress Transformation – 2D σy
y
τxy
σxx = 100 psi
τxy
σyy = 60 psi σ1 σx
σx
τxy = 40 psi τ=0
τxy
θ1
x
τxy
σy
Determine the directions of principal stress

axes (θ1, θ2) and the magnitudes of principal
stresses (σ1, σ2): θ1 = 31.7 deg, θ2 = 121.7 deg
σ1 = 124.7 psi, σ2 = 35.3 psi
Principal Stresses (2D)

2
σx + σy ⎛ σx − σy ⎞
σ1 = + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + τ 2xy
2 ⎝ 2 ⎠
2
σx + σy ⎛ σx − σy ⎞ σ1 ≥ σ2
σ2 = − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + τ 2xy
2 ⎝ 2 ⎠
σ1 = Mean Stress + Max. Shear Stress
σ2 = Mean Stress – Max. Shear Stress

Mohr Stress Circles and
Principal Stress Calculations Y
σy
τxy
σx
σx
Shear Stress, τ
X
(σx−σy)/2
Max Shear Stress: τxy

σy
Mean Stress: Shear Stress:
(σx+ σy)/2 τxy
σy
σ2 σ1
σx
Normal Stress, σ
σ1 = Mean Stress + Max. Shear Stress
σ2 = Mean Stress – Max. Shear Stress

Mohr Circles - Graphic Representation of 2D Stresses
τ
σn =
(σ1 + σ 3 ) σ1 −σ 3
+ Cos 2θ
τ 2 2
σ1 − σ 3 (σ1 − σ 3 )
σn 2 τ = Sin 2θ
σ 2
σ3 σ1
2θ
⎛ σ1 + σ 3 ⎞
⎜ ,0 ⎟ θ = 530
⎝ 2 ⎠

Principal Stresses – 3D
- Eigen Values of the Stress Matrix (s)
σ x −σ τ xy τ xz
τ xy σ y −σ τ yz = 0 , σ 3 − I1σ 2 − I 2σ − I3 = 0
τ xz τ yz σ z −σ
where
σ x τ xy σ x τ xz σ y τ zy
I1 = σ x + σ y + σ z , I 2 = + +
τ xy σ y τ xz σ z τ zy σ z
σ x τ xy τ xz
and I 3 = τ xy σ y τ zy are the Stress Invariants
τ xz τ zy σ z
Principal Stresses
σv
In the case of a reservoir,
σh
σ1 = σv = Vertical/Overburden stress
σH
σ2 = σH = Maximum horizontal stress
Stress Magnitude
σ3 = σh = Minimum horizontal stress
Depth
σv
σh σH
Representation of A Stress State
• The state of stress AT A POINT in the

reservoir can be represented by Mohr’s
circle
τ
σ
σ3 σ2 σ1
Outline

9 Principal Stresses and Mohr’s Circle
ÎElasticity and Elastic Parameters
z Failure Theories

Elastic Properties
σ Elasto-
Max. Stress =
Failure Strength
plastic Re-loading
P
Linear
Yield Unloading
Elastic
δ1
E Sample
εpl εel ε1

Elastic Properties
Elastic Moduli – E and ν
P
Measure:
Axial Load (P) δ3
δ1
Deformations: δ1, δ3
Conf. Pres. σ2 = σ3
Sample
σ1 = P / area
ε1 = δ1 / orig. length
ε3 = 2*δ3 / orig. dia.

Elastic Properties
Co = σmax
dσ1
dε3 dε1
ε3 ε1
Ε = dσ1 / dε1 ν = −dε3/ dε1

Elastic Properties
Young’s Modulus & Poisson’s Ratio
)Young’s Modulus: E = Δσ1 / Δε1

Young’s modulus describes the stiffness of a material
when it is under stress. The higher the Young’s
modulus, the harder it is to deform the material. i.e.
requires more stress to deform.
)Poisson’s Ratio: 0 < ν = - Δε3 / Δε1 < 0.5

Poisson’s ratio defines the relative strain in a direction
not subjected to incremental stress and orthogonal to
the direction of the incremental stress. A material with
Poisson’s ratio of 0.5 is an incompressible material.

Types of Moduli
Young’s modulus: E = dσ1 / dε1
Initial
Tangential
Secant
50% peak stress

Initial Modulus
dσ E = dσ / dε
dε
ε
Tangential Modulus
σ
dσ E = dσ / dε
x
dε
ε
Secant Modulus
E = dσ / dε
dσ
dε ε
Modulus at 50% Peak Stress
σ
σmax
50 % E = dσ / dε
σmax
dσ
dε
ε
Quiz
Quiz-- Elastic Properties
Given: P
Orig. length = 2 inches
Orig. Dia. = 1 inch δ3
δ1
Ax. Deformation = 0.05 inch
Rad. Deformation = 0.003 inch
Load = 20,000 lbf Sample

L
Find:
E=?
ν=?
d
Quiz Solution
Solution-- Elastic Properties
Solution: P
σ1 = P / cross-sectional area
δ3
Area = πd2/4 δ1
ε1 = δ1 / orig. length
ε3 = 2*δ3 / orig. dia.
Sample
Area = 3.1416*(1)2/4 = .785in2 L
σ1 = P / area = 25465 psi
ε1 = 0.05 / 2 = 0.025
ε3 = 2*(-0.003) / 1 = -0.006
E = σ1 / ε1 = 25465/.025 = 1.02E+06 psi
ν = -ε3 / ε1 = .006/.025 = 0.24
d

Stress -Strain Relations
Stress-Strain
Relations between Stress and Strain (isotropic)
Uniaxial Loading: E = Δσ1 / Δε1 = Δσy / Δεy
1 Y σy
ε xx = (σ xx − νσ yy − νσ zz ) τyx
E τyz
1
ε yy = (σ yy − νσ xx − νσ zz )
E τzy τxz σx
1 τxy
σz τzx
ε zz = (σ zz − νσ yy − νσ xx ) X
E
σ xx + σ yy + σ zz Z
ε v = ε xx + ε yy + ε zz =
3K
τ xy τ yz τ zx E and ν
ε xy = , ε yz = , ε zx =
2G 2G 2G
Stress -Strain Relations
Stress-Strain
Relations between Stress and Strain (isotropic)
Uniaxial Loading: E = Δσ1 / Δε1 = Δσy / Δεy
σ xx = λε v + 2 G ε xx Y σy
σ yy = λε v + 2 G ε yy τyx τyz
σ zz = λε v + 2 G ε zz
τ xy = 2 G ε xy τzy τxz σx
τxy
τ yx = 2 G ε yx σz τzx
X
τ zx = 2 G ε zx
Z
σ xx + σ yy + σ zz
ε v = ε xx + ε yy + ε zz = where λ, G, and K
3K
τ xy τ yz τ zx are functions of
ε xy = , ε yz = , ε zx =
2G 2G 2G E and ν
Elastic Properties
Relations between Different Elastic Parameters
(isotropic material – 2 constants)
Bulk Modulus
E E
Shear Modulus
G= , K= ,
2(1 + ν ) 3(1 - 2ν )
Eν
Lame’s constant λ=
(1 + ν )(1 − 2ν )
9KG 3K - 2G 2Gν
E= , ν= , λ=
3K + G 2(3K + G) 1 − 2ν

Outline

9 Principal Stresses
9 Mohr’s Circle
9 Elasticity and Elastic Parameters
ÎFailure Strength Parameters
ÎFailure Theories
z Effective Stress

Failure Strength Parameters
Intrinsic properties that describe the failure

behavior/response under load/force/stress.
) Compressive & tensile strengths (C & To)
Related Parameters:
) Angle of internal friction (α)
) Shear Strength (Si)
) Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS)
) Confined Compressive Strength

Compressive Strength – from Triaxial Compression Test
Test Apparatus Stress-Strain Curves

Axial Stress
Axial Differential Stress

Axial Confining
Strain Pressure
measurement inlet
Seal
Radial
Strain
measurement Confining
Pressure
outlet
Pore Radial Strain Axial Strain
Pressure
control

Typical Stress-Strain Curve (Triaxial)
Axial/Shear/Deviatoric Stress
(σa- σc or σ1-σ3)
Compressive Strength
Increasing crack density
New microcracks Macro cracking - failure

by joining microcracks
Δσa Linearly elastic Δσa Sliding on

macrocracks
Δεr Δεa
Closure of
pre-existing
cracks
Radial Strain εr (extension) Axial Strain εa (contraction)

Differential stresses (σ1-σ3)
σmax- Peak Strength Massive damage,

shear plane development
Starting of the
mechanical damage Sudden drop of stresses (brittle failure)
~0.60σmax Cohesion
lost
Continuous damage
Residual strength
Elastic behavior
σ−ε
Micro-fissures closing
Axial strain (εa)

(after Dusseault, 2000)

Different Types of Compression Tests

• Unconfined (Uniaxial) • Confined Triaxial
Compression Test Compression Test
σa σa
σc σc
σc = 0
σa σa
UCS = σamax C(σc) = σamax(σc)

Failure Envelope

Failure Theories
Mohr Failure Envelope

τ
D
C
An empirical criterion of failure defined by the envelope to a series of Mohr’s

circles: A- direct tension; B- Brazilian; C- unconfined compression; D- triaxial
compression.

Failure Theories
Mohr – Coulomb Failure Criterion

S i = Cohesion or initial shear strength
τ = S i + σ tan φ
φ = Internal Friction Angle
τ
φ
τ = S i + σ tan φ
Si
σ3 UCS σ1 σ
Mohr–Coulomb Failure Criterion

τ = So + μσ = So + σ tan φ or
σ1 = UCS + σ 3 tan 2 ( π4 + φ2 )
The relationships between So , μ , φ and UCS are:

1 + sin φ
tan( π4 + φ2 ) = 1 + μ 2 + μ = , and
1 − sin φ
UCS = 2So tan( π4 + φ2 ), μ = tan φ
UCS = Unconfined Compressive Strength,
So = Cohesion or initial shear strength
φ = Internal Friction Angle
μ = Friction Coefficient = tanφ

Confining Pressure Effect
σc = 50 MPa

σc = 25 MPa
σc = 10 MPa
σc = 5 MPa
σc = 0
Radial Strain Axial Strain

Failure Mechanics – Failure Modes
Ductile – high
σ
(σ3)
confining stress (σ
σ0
Transitional
Brittle – low
(σ3)
confining stress (σ
After de Van der Pluijm y Marshak, 1997

Confining Pressure Effects
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
160
During Compaction Undisturbed
Formation Strength
120 During
Production
80
depth = 5000 ft
shale
40
During Drilling
0
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
CONFINING PRESSURE [Mpa]

Temperature Effect
25°C
20
15
σ1 - σ3 [kbars]
300°C
10 500°C
800°C
5
0
5 10 15
Strain [%]

Specimen Size Effect
(after Bienawski and Van Heerden, 1975)
140
Compressive Strength [MPa]
Calcareous Iron Ore

120 Jahns, 1966
100 Cedar City Quartz Diorite,

Pratt et. all, 1972.
80 Coal, Bienawski, 1968
60
40
20
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Specimen Length [m]

Fluid/Saturation Effect
Dry
50
40 Saturated,
σ1 - σ3 [kbars]
non-wetting phase fluid
30
Saturated,
wetting phase fluid
20
10
5 10 15 20 25
Strain [%]

Other Types of Compression Tests

• Hydrostatic Compression • Uniaxial Strain
Test (K0) Test
σa
K = σc/εv σa
εv = εa + 2*εr
σc σc = σa c = 1/K
εc = 0
Δ σx ' Δ σy ' ν
K0 = = = t
Δσ z ' Δσ z ' 1 - ν t
σa σa
For Bulk modulus/Compressibility Field Conditions

Tensile Strength
) Capacity of a material to support tensile stress.
σT
• Direct Tension Test
To = σTmax
σT
• Bending Test
P
• Brazilian Indirect
Tension Test
To = 2Pmax/πtD

Outline

9 Principal Stresses
9 Mohr’s Circle
9 Elasticity and Elastic Parameters
9 Failure Theories
9 Failure Strength Parameters
ÎEffective Stress

Effective Stress Concept
If a load is applied to a rock, a portion of the load is imparted on the

rock matrix and a portion on the pore fluid (counteracting).
Pore pressure increases if rock permeability is sufficiently low
Total stress (σ) = F/A

F
A = area of the plane
Grain load increases
Matrix

Mathematically, the effective stress (σ’) concept is written as:

Total Stress (σ) = Stress on grains (σ’) + Stress on fluid (Pp)
Stress on grains (σ’) = Total Stress (σ) - Pore Pressure (Pp)
σ’ = σ – Pp Î Terzaghi’s effective stress law
For constant Pp: σ ↑, σ’↑ (and vice versa)
For constant σ: Pp ↑, σ’↓
For constant σ: Pp ↓ , σ’↑
This is known as the Terzaghi’s effective stress.

For most rocks, a change in total stress (or pore pressure) does not
yield an identical change in effective stress. To account for this,
Terzaghi’s effective stress was modified by Biot (1941) as:
σ’ = σ - αPp
where α = Biot’s effective stress coefficient 0< α < 1 (rocks)
α = 1 (soil)
For α = 1 → a given Pp increase (∆Pp) yields an equal reduction in σ’ (i.e., ∆Pp = ∆σ’)
For α < 1 → a Pp increase gives an unequal reduction in σ’ (i.e., ∆Pp ≠ ∆σ’)
Upshot: Biot’s constant is a measure of the “efficiency” of
the fluid in counteracting the applied stress. Note that Biot’s
constant is stress dependent.
Effective Stress
Stress-- Example
Given: Three cylinders of identical geometrical proportions with the properties
shown below.
Find: The effective stress (axial) for each sample under an identical load.
2”
4”
steel shale sandstone

φ=0 φ = 10% φ = 25%
k = 0 md k = 10-9 md k=1d
Pp = N/A Pp = 3000 psi Pp = 3000 psi
α = N/A α = 0.5 α = 0.9
Note: φ = total porosity, k = permeability [Darcy or milliDarcy], Pp = pore pressure [psi], α = Biot’s constant
Effective Stress
Stress-- Example
10,000 lbf 10,000 lbf 10,000 lbf
Solution:
Total stress (σ) = F/A = 10,000/πr2 = 10,000/π12 = 3183 psi
Effective Stress
Stress-- Example
Solution (cont’d):
σ’ = σ - αPp
σ’ = σ – αPp σ’ = σ – αPp σ’ = σ – αPp

= 3183 – 0 = 3183 – 0.5*3000 = 3183 – 0.9*3000
= 3183 psi = 1683 psi = 483 psi

Poro -elasticity
Poro-elasticity
Induced fluid pressure brings stress relief to the

solid material (dilation) (poro-elasticity); similar
to heating (thermoelasticity)
Permeable material (or slow loading) – pore
pressure dissipates – acts like solid material,
without fluid
Tight rock/faster loading – pore pressure rises
within entrapped fluid, resulting in smaller than
expected rock deformation
Material appears stiffer: combined rock and fluid
Time-dependent behavior
Rock Mechanical
Properties
Characterization
Outline
ÎMechanical behavior under loading

ÎStratigraphy and rock fabric
z Dynamic rock mechanical properties
z Logging of Mechanical Properties
z Empirical correlations
z Rock mechanics laboratory
Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service 2

www.bakeratlasdirect.com
© 2000
2005 Baker Hughes Incorporated All rights reserved.
Rock Mechanical Behaviors Under
Stress Loading
σ Max. Stress =
Failure Strength
Elasto-
plastic Re-loading
Yield Unloading
Linear
Elastic

© 2000
Mechanical behavioral Models
Linear-elastic model (no rupture)

Elastic model with brittle rupture
Non-linear elasticity (where E = f(σ))
Elastic, perfectly plastic
Elastic with strain-weakening, then plastic
Visco-elastic (shales, some rocks at high T)
Visco-plastic (salt and other halides)
…………
Choose the model that adequately describes the
mechanical behavior as exhibited by the σ - ε curve.
© 2000
Stratigraphy and Rock Fabric
Petroleum geomechanics deals with wide variety of rocks

ranging from clay-free reservoir sandstones through siltstones
to mudstones and shales.
In-situ mechanical properties depend on the interaction
between intrinsic and extrinsic properties.
Intrinsic properties include mineralogy and its distribution
in the rock frames, grain size distribution and rock fabric
such as bedding planes or fractures.
Extrinsic properties are confining pressure, strain rate and
temperature.
1. Plumb, R.A: ”Influence of composition and texture on the failure properties of elastic rocks”, Eurock 94.
2. Plumb, R.A., Heron, S.L., and Olsen, M.P.: “Influence of composition and texture on compressive strength
variations in the Travis Peak formation”, SPE 27458
© 2000
Mechanical Classifications of
Reservoir Rocks
Three categories depending on the basis of the volume of
clay minerals:
• grain supported, Vclay < 15%
• transitional supported, 15 % < Vclay < 35%
• clay supported, Vclay > 35%
External loads applied to grain supported rocks are carried
by grain-to-grain contacts.
In transitional supported rocks, loads are distributed more
equally among detrital grains and clay minerals.
In clay supported rocks, externally applied loads are borne
entirely by clay minerals.
© 2000
Rock Mechanical Behavior
Under Stress Loading
Unconfined compressive strength and average friction angle vs. Vgrain for rocks classified
by their load bearing solid phase. Vgrain= 1-(φ+Vclay)

© 2000
Lithology vs. Acoustic Velocity
After Castagna & Batzle (1985)

© 2000
Lithology vs. Acoustic Velocity
Vp/Vs
After Tatham and McCormack 1991

© 2000
Outline
9 Mechanical behavior under loading

9 Stratigraphy and rock fabric
ÎDynamic rock mechanical properties
z Logging of Mechanical Properties

© 2000
Elastic Constants From Logs
⎡⎛ Δ t s ⎞ ⎤
2
⎢ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 2 ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ Δ t c ⎠ ⎡⎛ 1 ⎤
2
⎥⎦ ⎞
νD = ; E D = 2 ⎢ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ * (1 + ν D )ρ ⎥
⎡⎛ Δ t s ⎞ ⎤ ⎢⎣ ⎝ Δ t s
2
⎠ ⎥⎦
2 ⎢ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 1 ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ Δ t c ⎠ ⎥⎦
ED and νD are dynamic moduli, ρ is bulk density.
Δtc and Δts are compressional and shear slownesses.
From Acoustic Logs

Other dynamic moduli (such as Bulk modulus, Shear modulus,
and compressibilities) can then be calculated.
© 2000
Dynamic Mechanical Properties –
Example Calculations
⎡ ⎛ Cp ⎞
2
⎤ ⎡⎛ C p ⎞ 2 ⎤
C s ρ ⎢3⎜⎜
2
⎟⎟ − 4⎥ 0.5⎢⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 2⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ C s ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣⎝ C s ⎠ ⎥⎦
E D = 1.347 × 10 10
υD =
⎡⎛ C p ⎞ 2 ⎤ ⎡⎛ C p ⎞ 2 ⎤
⎢⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 1⎥ ⎢⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 1⎥
⎢⎣⎝ C s ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣⎝ C s ⎠ ⎥⎦
DEPTH DTC DTS DEN POIS-dyn E-dyn
m us/ft us/ft g/cc psi
630.0216 150.865 447.784 2.22 0.436 4.26E+05

630.174 152.576 484.607 2.22 0.445 3.66E+05
630.3264 150.976 486.765 2.23 0.447 3.65E+05
630.4788 146.855 467.886 2.24 0.445 3.96E+05
630.6312 144.915 440.522 2.25 0.439 4.47E+05
630.7836 142.951 395.599 2.28 0.425 5.56E+05
630.936 142.545 382.763 2.26 0.419 5.87E+05
631.0884 142.337 370.373 2.27 0.413 6.27E+05
631.2408 143.286 381.956 2.24 0.418 5.84E+05

© 2000
Static vs. Dynamic Moduli
In General: ED >> ES, GD >> GS, νD > or < νS
12
10
8
Ed [106 psi]
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
(from Preston, 1976) E [106 Psi]
© 2000
Causes of Difference between
Static and Dynamic Moduli
¾Dynamic Loading (as opposed to static)
• Low amplitude (low magnitude of load)
• High-frequency (fast loading and unloading)
• Low affected mass (few mm)
• Non-destructive testing

© 2000
Static vs. Dynamic
ACOUSTIC EXPERIMENT BOREHOLE EARTH
FREQUENCY (Hz) 104 − 106 10−2 − 10−5 10−4 − 10−9 10−15
TIME μs s - DAYS HRS -YRS 106 YRS

STRAIN RATE s-1 10-5 s-1 10-9 s-1 10-14 s-1
AFFECTED MASS mm3 cm3 100-1000 m3 1013 m3

© 2000
Causes of Difference between
Static and Dynamic Moduli
¾In Dynamic Loading (opposed to static), the

micro-mechanisms such as:
• grain crushing
grain contact parameters
• pore collapse
• crack sliding
• dilatancy
are not activated, leading to higher dynamic

moduli than static’s equivalents.

© 2000
Grain Contact Processes
Grain Shear Pore

Crushing Sliding Collapse
σ1 σ1 σ1
σ1 σ1 σ1

© 2000
Crack Processes
CLOSING
OLD CRACKS
σ1 SLIDING OLD CRACKS
OPENING FORMATION OF
NEW CRACKS “WING CRACKS”
σ1 σ1
σ1
σ1 σ1

© 2000
Stress Field Sliding Crack
TENSION
COMPRESSION
COMPRESSION
TENSION
CRACKS CLOSE
CRACKS OPEN
“WING” or “TAIL” CRACKS

© 2000
Total Strain
εTOTAL = ε STATIC
= ε MATRIX
+ ε OPEN CRACKS
+ ε GRAIN CONTACTS (crushing + pore collapse)
+ ε SLIDING CRACKS
εELASTIC = εDYNAMIC
= εMATRIX
+ εOPEN CRACKS

© 2000
Outline
9 Mechanical behaviors under loading

9 Stratigraphy and rock fabrics
9 Dynamic rock mechanical properties
ÎLogging of Mechanical Properties

© 2000
Logging of Mechanical Properties
Logging of
Mechanical
Properties
- E, ν, C…..
The evaluation of rock
mechanical properties from
wireline logs is
fundamental to
engineering problems Radial Strain
associated with wellbore

60
stability, sand production Stress [MPa]
and hydraulic fracturing.
© 2000
LMP
Porosity,
Density, Sonic, Strength
....
12
10
8
Stress (MPa)
Provides
6
estimates
4
for the
2
constitutive
0
parameters -5 0 5 10 15
Strain (mStrain)
Simulates rock mechanical

test on fictitious core

© 2000
Technical Background
Challenge:
- Establisha log interpretation routine
that estimates rock strength from wireline logs
The approach:
Consider the
relations between Input from logs
dynamic moduli
and static moduli
Leads to strength

© 2000
Acoustic Behavior Model
Idealized model of rock formation as seen by acoustic waves:
Pore Space
Crack
1. Rock Matrix
2. Solid Pores (spherical)
– contributes to porosity, but stiff.
3. Flat Thin Cracks (three orthogonal directions)
– provide crack density
– does not contribute to porosity, but are compliant.
All three contribute to acoustic properties of the material.
© 2000
Acoustic Behavior
Dynamic (Sije) and Static compliance (Sij) are related by:
S + Pie
Sii =
1 − ∑ Fij
ii
3 ε ij = Sijklσ kl
j =1
Sij = Sije − S jj ( Fji + D ji ), i≠ j

where:
Pi are the grain contact parameters
Fij are the shear crack sliding parameters
Dij are the dilatancy parameters
This is the constitutive model developed by SINTEF using the
micro-mechanics principles.
© 2000
(LMP)
Log Inputs
Vsh , Vss , Vw , Vhc , ρ , VP , VS VP , VS from logs. Substitute fluid
and determine VP , VS of dry frame
Ideal porous medium model

Inequality is Taking the
“Effective medium theory”
attributed to inequality to extract
microcrack/grain proportionally the
contacts/pore pre-determined
Strip fluid and assume dry frame only, distribution parameters
calculate theoretical VP and VS
20 parameters (a1 , a2
Theoretical constitutive relations between
, a3 , l1 , l2 , l3 ……….)
stress and strain:
- basic sand
- microcracks ε = f(σ , ρ , l1 , l2 , l3 , ϕ ……)
- basic shale
- grain contacts ε = f(σ , ρ , a1 , a2 , a3 , d ……)
- basic chalk
σa
Δ ε = C Δσ ε = Cσ
εr εa 27
© 2000
Model Calibration
Af3 Sliding crack coefficient % Calibration data for sandstone
Af0 Basic sliding crack coefficient 1.8E-9 p1
Af1 Porosity impact on sliding crack coefficient 1.1E-9 p2
Af2 Crack density impact on sliding crack coefficient 0.31e-6 p3
a1 General failure parameter 1.67 p4
a2 General failure parameter 1.0E6 p5
b1 Wing crack coefficient 0.05 n0
d1 Compaction constant for dilatancy parameter 0.05 n1
d2 Dilation constant for dilatancy parameter 5.0E6 T0
d3 Porosity impact on dilatancy exponent 7.3e-3 Af0
d4 Stress impact exponent 1.7 Af1
Eg Pore collapse parameter 0.0 Af2
Jg1 Porosity impact on pore collapse
1.0E6 S
3.0 b1
h1 Grain rotation coefficient
400.0 h1
n0 Basic crack density exponent
3.25 d1
n1 Porosity impact on n
6.0 d2
PSRAT, RV Ratio between dry P- and S-wave velocity 0.2 d3
p1 Porosity impact on grain contact mechanism 0.8 d4
p2 Crack density impact on grain contact mechanism 200e6 a1
p3 Stress impact on grain contact mechanism 10 a2
p4 Stress history impact on grain contact mechanism 0.0 Af3
p5 Stabilizing parameter for grain contact mechanism 0.45 phic
T0 Tensile strength parameter 40.01e9 GS
Gs Shear modulus of solid material 35.01e9 KS
Ks Bulk modulus of solid material 1.5 PSRAT
s Dilatancy parameter 1000.0E9 JG1
φc Critical porosity 4.3 EG

© 2000
Log Inputs
σa
Dtc, Dts, Porosity, Lithology, Produce Stress-
Saturations Strain Curves
σr
Produces
Virtual
Core Sample σa
Applying
Virtual
Stresses εr εa
to the “Core
Sample”
Static Mechanical Properties:

Rock Strength, Elastic Moduli
Poisson’s Ratio, Compressibilities

© 2000
LMP Procedure
The input data to LMP are obtained from:

• logs (provided by the user for each well)
• lithology dependent calibration data (built-in)
Calibration data - determined from rock mechanical tests

where both static and dynamic measurements are made.
• The model numerically simulates loading in small steps
• At each step, the model quantities are updated
• Process is repeated until failure (stress/strain level is reached).

© 2000
LMP Log input data
Poor quality in => Poor results
Curve Description Unit
Column 1: DEPTH Measured depth [m]
High Column 2: TVD True vertical depth [m]
Intermediate
Column 3: VSS Relative volume of sand or chalk
Low Column 4: VSH Relative volume of shale
Column 5: VW Relative volume of water
Column 6: VH Relative volume of hydrocarbons
Note: the
Column 7: KH Bulk modulus of hydrocarbons [GPa]
resolution of Column 8: RHOH Density of hydrocarbons [g/ccm]
LMP is limited Column 9: RHOB Bulk density [g/ccm]
by the Column 10: DTP Compressional slowness [us/ft]
resolution of Column 11: DTS Shear slowness [us/ft]
the sonic log! Column 12: SIGV Vertical stress [MPa]
Column 13: PPORE Pore pressure [MPa]
Column 14: SIGH Horizontal stress [MPa]
Column 15: LMP Calibration data set

© 2000
Sample of LMP Log input data
DEPTH TVD VSS VSH VW VH KH RHOH RHOB DTP DTS SIGV PPORE SIGW LMP
2460.739 2430.73 0.678 0.005 0.015 0.302 0.670 0.800 2.010 97.870 181.68 36.179 24.11 24.15 12
2460.820 2431.82 0.682 0.000 0.015 0.303 0.670 0.800 2.009 101.28 183.67 36.181 24.11 24.11 12
2460.901 2431.90 0.680 0.002 0.015 0.303 0.670 0.800 2.008 106.57 187.14 36.183 24.11 24.11 12
2460.983 2431.98 0.683 0.000 0.015 0.302 0.670 0.800 2.009 111.09 192.10 36.184 24.1 8 24.11 12
2461.063 2432.06 0.682 0.000 0.014 0.304 0.670 0.800 2.008 114.28 196.99 36.186 24.18 24.11 12
2461.145 2432.14 0.681 0.000 0.014 0.305 0.670 0.800 2.006 115.32 200.13 36.187 24.19 24.11 12
2461.226 2432.22 0.681 0.000 0.014 0.305 0.670 0.800 2.006 114.35 200.58 36.189 24.12 24.12 12
2461.307 2432.30 0.682 0.000 0.014 0.304 0.670 0.800 2.008 113.55 199.64 36.191 24.12 24.12 12
2461.388 2432.38 0.669 0.017 0.014 0.300 0.670 0.800 2.016 114.14 199.09 36.192 24.12 24.12 12
2461.469 2432.46 0.672 0.018 0.013 0.297 0.670 0.800 2.025 115.27 198.68 36.194 24.12 24.12 12
2461.550 2432.55 0.672 0.017 0.015 0.296 0.670 0.800 2.022 114.98 198.05 36.195 24.12 24.12 12
2461.631 2432.63 0.687 0.000 0.013 0.300 0.670 0.800 2.018 113.35 197.84 36.197 24.12 24.12 12
2461.712 2432.71 0.688 0.001 0.012 0.299 0.670 0.800 2.023 112.87 199.07 36.199 24.12 24.12 12
2461.793 2432.79 0.689 0.000 0.012 0.299 0.670 0.800 2.021 114.05 202.95 36.200 24.12 24.12 12
2461.875 2432.87 0.657 0.035 0.012 0.296 0.670 0.800 2.028 115.19 206.40 36.202 24.12 24.12 12
2461.956 2432.95 0.631 0.066 0.012 0.291 0.670 0.800 2.039 114.95 205.64 36.203 24.12 24.12 12

© 2000
Control Parameters for LMP
Description Default value Low High Units
CONFP Confining pressure 5 0 200 MPa

C1 Lower calibration mixing limit 0.15 0 1
C2 Upper calibration mixing limit 0.4 0 1
CLIM Limit for use of empirical calibration 1 0 1
PORFAC Controls porosity correction 0 0 1
WD Water depth 0 0 1E6 m
LMP data = IJ
z IJ = 1-9, single calibration table
z IJ = 11-98, mix calibration from calibration table I and J
– C = vI/(vI+vJ)
• C <= C1 : Lithology I calibration is used
• C >= C2 : Lithology J calibration is used
• C1 < C < C2 : Calibration data for lithology I and J is
linearly mixed
• C > CLIM: Empirical formula

© 2000
Sample of control parameters

© 2000
LMP Procedure – Shale Porosity
z Porosity corrections in shaly formations
– If only effective porosity is present (PORFAC=1)
Δφ p R
=0.05
0.05
⋅V V
, clay f (V p ,sat ) < 0.05
Δφ
|
Δφ= S
=f f(V(V ), )
cl
0.05 < f (V p ,sat ) < 0.5
Δφ T
| p
=0.50⋅.V5V,
p , satp , sat
cl f (V p ,sat ) > 0.5

p clay
f (V p ,sat ) = e0 + e1V p ,sat + e2V p2,sat + e3V p3,sat
Vclay= shale/clay volume

© 2000
LMP Procedure – Strength
Correlation
Empirical correlation for strength of shale material if C > CLIM:
⎛ vsh vss ⎞
DTSc = DTC ⎜ Rsh + Rss ⎟
⎝ vsh + vss vsh + vss ⎠
−3 −5.0
UCS = 1.05 ⋅10 ( DTSc ⋅10 ) -3
Vp
Rsh and Rss are the tabulated ratios for shale and sandstone respectively.
Vs
Mason (1987)
© 2000
LMP – Output Parameters
) Compressive strength
) Young’s modulus
) Poisson’s ratio
) Shear modulus
) Bulk modulus (triaxial)
) Bulk modulus (hydrostatic)
) Internal friction angle
) Cohesive strength
) Biot’s constant

© 2000
Compressive Strength Comparison:
LMP vs. Lab (deepwater GoM ex. 1)
LMP1 LMP2 LMP3 LMP4 Lab1 Lab2 Lab3 Lab4 GR
GR [API]
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Curve colors
Blue= conf. press. #1 =
unconfined
Pink = conf. press. #2
Yellow = conf. press. #3
Turquiose = conf. press. #4
Depth
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

Compressive Strength [psi]
© 2000
Compressive Strength Comparison:
GR [API]
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Depth
Curve colors
Blue= conf. press. #1 = unconfined
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Compressive Strength [psi]
© 2000
Young’s Modulus Comparison:
GR [API]
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Curve colors
Blue= conf. press. #1 =
unconfined
Depth
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Young's Modulus [MMpsi]
© 2000
Young’s Modulus Comparison:
GR [API]
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Depth
Curve colors
Blue= conf. press. #1 = unconfined
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Young's Modulus [MMpsi]
© 2000
Strength Prediction

© 2000
Young’s Modulus Prediction

© 2000
MOHR CIRCLES
σ1 = 2So tan α + σ3 tan 2 β
π φ
β= +
4 2 ⎛ ⎡ σ 1 a − σ 1b ⎤ π⎞
φ = 2⎜ tan ⎢
− 1
⎥ − ⎟⎟
⎜
⎝ ⎣ σ 3a − σ 3b ⎦ 4⎠
With two Mohr’s circles, we
have two equations relating
internal friction angle (Φ) and So =
1
[(σ1a + σ1b ) − (σ3a + σ3b ) tan 2 β]
cohesion (So) with σ1 and σ3. 4 tan β
Therefore, with known stress or
conditions we can solve for UCS
the two Mohr Coulomb So =
2 tan β
parameters!

© 2000
MOHR CIRCLES
30
Confining pressure
is 10 MPa Strength is 41 MPa
Shear Stress [MPa]
20 Friction
angle
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Confining Pressure [MPa]
© 2000
LMP - Rocktest
Program that uses well logging data to

determine the formation’s stress-strain
behaviors as well as the axial and radial
acoustic velocities, based on static
elastic properties (complement to LMP).
… as with LMP, Rocktest is based on the

FORMEL model, which describes the
collective micro-structural behaviors of
rock constituents during stress loading.

© 2000
LMP - Rocktest
What do we need to run Rocktest?

¾ INPUT DATA Æ MD, TVD, Δtc, Δts, lithology,
mineral volumes, bulk density, water and hydrocarbon
saturations, σH, and σV .
¾ CONTROL PARAMETERS Æ Mixing limits (C1 and C2),

… asrelationship
empirical LMP, Rocktest is based
limit (CLIM), Outputon
filethe
(OUTPTFIL),
FORMEL
Porosity model,
correction which
control describes
(PORFAC), confiningthepressure
(SIGC), and processing
collective depth (TSTDEPTH),
micro-structural behaviors request
of for
parameters listing (VERBOSE), water depth (WD), and
rock constituents during stress loading.
calibration table file names (LMPTAB).

© 2000
Rocktest – Input Data
Hydrocarbon Acoustic Calibration

Depth Properties Slowness
DEPTH TVD VSA VSH VW VOIL KOIL HCDE DEN DTC DTS SIGV PP SIGH LMP
4460 2456.356 0.999 0 0.001 0 0.8 0.7 2.5535 77.8283 143.7192 52.12252 35.71542 43.86157 12
4460.152 2456.427 0.999 0 0.001 0 0.8 0.7 2.5556 77.6383 139.924 52.12415 35.71645 43.86301 12
4460.305 2456.498 0.999 0 0.001 0 0.8 0.7 2.5527 73.4818 136.8492 52.12578 35.71748 43.86445 12
4460.457 2456.569 0.999 0 0.001 0 0.8 0.7 2.5461 71.5991 136.9608 52.1274 35.71851 43.86589 12
4460.61 2456.64 0.9217 0 0.061 0.0173 0.8 0.7 2.5415 67.9204 135.5699 52.12903 35.71954 43.86733 12
4460.762 2456.711 0.9264 0 0.0567 0.0169 0.8 0.7 2.5491 67.3749 143.9718 52.13066 35.72057 43.86877 12
4460.914 2456.782 0.9436 0 0.05 0.0064 0.8 0.7 2.5814 68.064 138.9534 52.13229 35.72161 43.87022 12
4461.067 2456.853 0.9822 0 0.0178 0 0.8 0.7 2.6256 68.2664 135.4932 52.13392 35.72264 43.87166 12
4461.219 2456.924 0.9985 0 0.0015 0 0.8 0.7 2.6486 74.7734 132.7831 52.13554 35.72367 43.8731 12
4461.372 2456.995 0.9723 0 0.0277 0 0.8 0.7 2.593 65.0705 133.2914 52.13717 35.7247 43.87454 12
4461.524 2457.066 0.8926 0 0.047 0.0604 0.8 0.7 2.4621 91.1018 140.8076 52.1388 35.72573 43.87598 12
4461.676 2457.137 0.8014 0 0.0489 0.1497 0.8 0.7 2.3579 92.6543 141.6646 52.14043 35.72677 43.87742 12
Volumetrics Bulk Density Stress Field

© 2000
Rocktest – Output File
Radial Axial Confining Axial Radial-P Axial-P Radial-S Axial-S

Strain Strain Pressure Stress Velocity Velocity Velocity Velocity
mStrain mStrain MPa MPa m/s m/s m/s m/s
0 -0.00394 0.05 0.05 2085.349 3147.419 1417.535 1694.329
0.01187 0.00404 0.1 0.1 2093.867 3153.143 1421.319 1697.517
0.02359 0.01193 0.15 0.15 2102.312 3158.791 1425.077 1700.675
0.03517 0.01972 0.2 0.2 2110.682 3164.366 1428.807 1703.801
0.04661 0.02742 0.25 0.25 2118.98 3169.869 1432.509 1706.896
0.0579 0.03503 0.3 0.3 2127.203 3175.302 1436.183 1709.96
0.06906 0.04255 0.35 0.35 2135.354 3180.665 1439.83 1712.995
0.08009 0.04998 0.4 0.4 2143.431 3185.962 1443.449 1716
0.091 0.05733 0.45 0.45 2151.436 3191.193 1447.04 1718.976
0.10177 0.0646 0.5 0.5 2159.369 3196.36 1450.603 1721.923
0.11243 0.07179 0.55 0.55 2167.23 3201.463 1454.139 1724.841
0.12297 0.07891 0.6 0.6 2175.019 3206.506 1457.646 1727.731
0.13339 0.08594 0.65 0.65 2182.737 3211.488 1461.126 1730.594
0.14369 0.09291 0.7 0.7 2190.385 3216.411 1464.578 1733.429

© 2000
Rocktest – Output File
180
160
Radial
140 Axial
120
Stress (MPa)
100
80
60
40
20
hydrostatic state of stress
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Strain (mstrain)

© 2000
LMP Capabilities
z Predicts static properties
from logs @ any given
confining pressure
z Generates complete
stress-strain curves
z Only one available in
market
z Used for drilling,
completion and
subsidence/compaction
studies
z Independently validated
using laboratory results

© 2000
Outline

9 Logging of Mechanical Properties
ÎEmpirical correlations

© 2000
Lacy’s (1997) Empirical
Correlations*
Dynamic Young’s Modulus:
E d [10 6 psi ] = 0.265 * (Vp ) 2.04 Vp = compressional velocity [km/s]
E d [10 6 psi ] = 59100 /( Δt C ) 2.17 Δtc = compressional slowness [μsec/ft]
ρb = bulk density [g/cm3]
E d [10 6 psi ] = 11300ρ b / (Δt C ) 2
Conversion from dynamic to static Young’s moduli:

E[10 6 psi ] = 0.018E d + 0.422E d
2
Unconfined Compressive Strength:

UCS[ksi ] = 0.2787E 2 + 2.458E
*Lacy’s (1997- SPE 38716) correlations were developed based on lab testing of over 600
samples of sandstones, shales, limestones and dolomites.
© 2000
Lal’s (1999) Empirical
Correlations*
Internal Friction Angle and Cohesion:
φ[radians] = sin −1 (Vp − 1) /(Vp + 1)

So [MPa ] = 5(Vp - 1)/ (Vp ) Vp = compressional velocity [km/s]
UCS = 2So tan(45 + φ/2)
*Lal’s (1999- SPE 54356) correlations were developed for shales ONLY. Caution should be
exercised if applying this correlation to other lithologies!
© 2000
Coates & Denoo’s (1981) Empirical
Correlation
UCS [MPa ] = 1.9 ×10-20 ρ b Vp ((1 +ν d )/(1 -ν d )) 2 (1 - 2ν d )(1 + 0.78Vclay )

2 4
Vp = compressional velocity [km/s]

Vclay = clay volume [fraction]
ρb = bulk density [kg/m3]
νd = dynamic Poisson’s ratio
*Coates & Denoo’s (1981) correlation was developed for sandstones & shales ONLY.
© 2000
Mason’s (1987) Empirical
Correlation
UCS[psi ] = 1.2 * (1000/Δt s ) 4 + 60.5 * (1000/Δt s ) 2
Δts = shear slowness [μsec/ft]
If Δts is not available, use Δtc and Δts/ Δtc ratio (based
on lithology) in the following expression:
UCS[psi ] = 1.2 * (1000/ (Δt c * ratio )) + 60.5 * (1000/ (Δt c * ratio ))
4 2
Δtc = compressional slowness [μsec/ft]

ratio = Δts/Δtc
*Mason’s (1987- SPE 13256) correlations were developed using tables of rock properties from Wuerker (SPE 663).
© 2000
Mason’s (1987) Empirical
Correlation
Lithology DTS/DTC
anhydrite 2.45
basalt 1.55
chalk 2.45
chert 1.60
clay 3.20
claystone
diabase
1.90
1.70
For mixed lithologies, use:
diorite 1.75
dolomite 1.80
epidosite 1.70
gabbro
gneiss
1.60
1.80
Δts/Δtc ratio (composite) = ratio1*V1 + ratio2*V2…..+ ration*Vn
granite 1.70
gypsum 2.45
hornstone 1.85
limestone (clean) 1.90
limestone (silty) 2.10
limestone (argillaceous) 2.30
marble 1.80
mudstone 1.85
pyrite 1.70
quartzite 1.55
quartzite 1.50
salt 2.15
sandstone (clean) 1.60
sandstone (silty) 1.70
sandstone (argillaceous) 1.85
shale 1.75
siltstone 1.80

© 2000
UCS Empirical Correlations –
(Sandstone)
After Chandong Chang 2004

© 2000
UCS Empirical Correlations –
(Shale)
After Chandong Chang 2004

© 2000
Outline

9 Logging of Mechanical Properties
9 Empirical correlations
ÎRock mechanics laboratory

© 2000
Triaxial Compression Tests
Test Apparatus Stress-Strain Curves

Axial Stress

Axial Confining
Strain Pressure
measurement inlet
Seal
Radial
Strain
measurement Confining
Pressure
outlet
Pore Radial Strain Axial Strain
Pressure
control

© 2000
Strength & Static Elastic Moduli
F
STATIC LABORATORY TEST RESULTS dx {
Compressive Strength UNDEFORMED DEFORMED
Linearly Poisson’s ratio (ν)

elastic = -Δεr/Δεa
Δσa Δσa
Δεr Δεa Young’s

Modulus (E) = Δσa/Δεa
Radial Strain εr (extension) Axial Strain εa (contraction)
© 2000
Different Types of Compression Tests

• Triaxial Compression Test • Hole Collapse Test
(Unconfined Compressive (Hole Collapse Strength, HCS)
Strength, UCS)
σc
σa
σc σc σc
σc
σc
σa

© 2000
Hollow Cylinder Test
Confining pressure
Also called a hole-collapse test.
Picture of a failed specimen

(Ref: Ewy et al., 2001, SPE 75328)

© 2000
Hollow Cylinder Test
σc
Typical Test Details:
1.5-inch diameter specimen

σc σc
0.5-inch diameter hole through the center
Length – 2 to 3 inches
Cylindrical steel end caps
σc
Jacketed with a thin, heat-shrink teflon
Interior of the 0.5-inch diameter hole left empty
Confining pressure is applied all around

© 2000
Hollow Cylinder Test – A Test Result

© 2000
Relating HCS to UCS
σc
C1 = HCS * {( 2c ) cos( 13 )cos -1d }- 1.0833
Di 1
= σc σc
11.4375
c = .42361 + Do 3
η
76.7819
2.84375 + σc SPE 75328
η
d= HCS = Hole-Collapse Strength
617 .625
c{−22.8749 − } C1 = Modified Lade strength – from HCS
η
c, d, = groups of terms, dimensionless
4 tan φ (9 − 7 sin φ ) 2
η= η = Modified Lade friction parameter
(1 − sin φ ) Φ = internal friction angle
© 2000
Relating HCS to UCS
HCS is related to UCS (from triaxial compression test):
S1 = nC1 σc
n ≤1
So = S1 tan φ
φ
UCS = 2So tan(45 + ) σc σc
2
S1 = Modified Lade strength parameter
C1 = Modified Lade strength, includes all the
strengthening effects (nonlinear deformations,
nonconstant moduli, intermediate stress) σc
n = factor to adjust strength downward for wellbore-

size holes SPE 75328
So= Mohr-Coulomb cohesion SPE 56862
© 2000
Effects of Borehole Size on Rock
Strength
(Hoek and Brown,1980)

© 2000
Effects of Borehole Size on Rock
Strength
(Ηerrick 1994)
© 2000
In-Situ Stress Characterizations
Outline
I. Introduction to subsurface stresses

II. Overburden calculation
III. Horizontal stress determination techniques
IV. Summary

Outline

III. In-situ stress determination techniques
IV. Summary

Subsurface Stresses
Rocks in the subsurface are subjected to compressive stresses*
due primarily to Gravity and Tectonic forces!
x
σv
These arise due to weight of
σv = Overburden Stress
overburden, confinement,
y σH = Max. Horizontal Stress
tectonic forces, temperature,
σh = Min. Horizontal Stress
pore fluid pressure,
z σH diagenesis, etc.
Generally Accepted Assumptions:
σh
1) The overburden is a principal stress which acts perpendicular to
NOTE: σH > σh the Earth’s surface.
2) 3 major principal stresses (σv, σH, σh) are orthogonal.
3) Rocks conform to the requirements of the Theory of Elasticity
(linearly elastic, homogeneous continuum, etc.).
* The Geomechanics sign convention for stress is compression = positive, tension = negative
Subsurface Stress Regimes*
σ2 = σv
NORMAL FAULTING
•Tensile regions σ1 = σv STRIKE-SLIP FAULTING
•High-angle faults •Shearing regions
•High-angle, lateral faults
σ3
σ3
σ3 = σv
φf ≈ 60º
σ1
σ2
σ1 φf ≈ 30º
THRUST FAULTING
•Compressive regions
footwall hanging wall •Low-angle faults
*(after Anderson, 1951) σ2

Stress Profiles
Profiles-- example
Note: In some cases, the horizontal stresses may
exceed vertical stress at shallow depths.
σv Stresses typically diverge with

depth increase (unless an over-
σH
pressured zone is encountered).
Depth
σh
However, at great depth the

MUD
stresses converge until the
PRESSURE
stress contrast disappears as
the stresses become
PORE hydrostatic (after Breckels and
PRESSURE van Eeklen 1982).
Pressure/Stress
Stress Profile Variations
Horizontal Stresses are

sensitive to:
• LITHOLOGY
• MECHANICAL
PROPERTIES
• PORE PRESSURE
Note: Pore pressure is depicted in a separate track!

Stress Determination Techniques
In-situ Stress Measurement Techniques
Method Measurement
Name Advantages Limitations Primary Usage
(Category) Location
Hydraulic Fracturing b
2D only
Sleeve Fracturing b Measurements in
Oil Industry, geological
Hydraulic existing holes, HTPF requires
Hydraulic test on pre- survey
b accurate, quick. many test on
existing fractures (HTPF)
existing fractures
Surface relief methods s
Undercoring c Denotes
Borehole relief methods Inexpensive, highly Difficult to install Mining, civil, defense
Relief
(overcoring, slotting, etc.)
b developed technique gages topics to be
Relief of large rock covered here.
s
volumes
Flat jack s gages susceptible to
Jacking Inexpensive, easy Civil
Curved jack s conditions
Anelastic Strain Recovery
c Results may be
Strain (ASR) Suitable for great
unreliable (sensitive Oil industry, civil
recovery Differential Strain Curve depths
c to several factors)
Analysis (DSCA)
A summary
Image log analysis b Restricted to info on Oil industry, geological
Borehole of all of these
Accurate, quick est. breakout width
breakout Oriented caliper analysis b survey
(reduces accuracy) methods can
Fault slip analysis l be found in
Earthquake focal Low cost Results give only a
l
rough estimate
Oil industry, geological Amadei and
mechanisms
survey Stephannson
Others Geological structures l Low cost
Acoustic methods b,c Easy Results unreliable (1997).
Bulk density log Data not always
b Easy Oil industry
integration available to surface
Key: b = borehole, c = core, l = large scale geological structures, s = surface rock measurements
Outline

III. Commonly used stress determination techniques
IV. Summary

Overburden ((σ
σv) Calculation
dw z
σv = ∫0 ρw g dz + ∫dw ρb gdz = weight of overburden
where ρb = bulk density of sediments = ρmatrix (1-φp) + ρpf

φ
ρmatrix = density of rock matrix
ρw = density of seawater
ρpf = density of pore fluid

dw
sf φp = total porosity
z g = gravitational constant
ds
ds = vertical depth of sediments
dw = depth of water
Depth of z = true vertical depth = dw + ds

interest
sf = sea floor
σv Calculation
However……….bulk density data is rarely available from surface

to depth of interest!
Usually requires one (or more) of the following:
• estimating bulk density in region above measured data

• use of acoustic data which is transformed to bulk density data in region
above measured data (when available)
• use of empirical formulas (may be region specific) to estimate ρb or σv

ρ b)
Useful Bulk Density ((ρ
Transformations
1. Gardner (1974)
0.25
⎡ g ⎤ ⎛ 10 ⎞ 6 where Δtc= measured interval travel time of
ρ b ⎢ 3 ⎥ = 0.23⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ compressive wave [μs/ft]
⎣ cm ⎦ ⎝ Δt c ⎠
2. Ludwig et al. (1970)

⎡ g ⎤
ρ b ⎢ 3 ⎥ = 1.27 Vp − 0.28Vp2 + 0.0232Vp3 where Vp= compressive acoustic velocity [km/s]
⎣ cm ⎦
3. Bellotti & Giacca (1978) where ρmx = matrix density (assume 2.75 g/cm3),
ρf = pore fluid density (assume 1.03 g/cm3), and
⎡ g ⎤ ⎛ Δt c − Δt c ( mx ) ⎞
ρ b ⎢ 3 ⎥ = ρ mx − 1.228(ρ mx − ρ f )⎜⎜
Δtc is the measured interval transit time, Δtc(mx) is
⎟ the matrix transit time (assume 53 μs/ft) and Δtc(f)
⎣ cm ⎦ Δ t + Δt ⎟ is the pore fluid transit time (assume 200 μs/ft).
⎝ c c ( f ) ⎠
4. Miller
φ = porosity , fraction
ρ = ρ matrix (1 − φ ) + ρ wφ
ρ w = Water Density → 1.03 g / cc
ρb Estimation - Example
WL Dens Gardner Ludwig
2.8
Gardner and Ludwig yield
2.7 different densities in the vicinity
of the mudline!
2.6
2.5
Bulk Density [g/cc]
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0 Trend matches well with WL dens in

this region.
1.9
Trend does not match as well with WL dens
1.8
in this region (appears to be depth shift issue)
Depth Below Mudline

σv Calculation - Quiz
What is the overburden pressure at point A, B,C and D?
1
Solution
P [psi] = ρgd = 0.052*8.33*sg*d [ft]
ρw = 1.074 g/cm3 1000 feet
Weight block 1 = 0.052*8.33*1.074*1000 = 465 psi
A 2 Weight block 2 = 0.052*8.33*1.95*600 = 507 psi
ρb(avg) = 1.95 g/cm3 600 feet Weight block 3 = 0.052*8.33*2.10*1200 = 1092 psi
Weight block 4 = 0.052*8.33*2.25*2400 = 2340 psi
B
3
At pt. A: p = weight block 1 = 465 psi (0.465 psi/ft)
ρb(avg) = 2.1 g/cm3 1200 feet
At pt. B: p = weight block 1+2 = 465 + 507 = 972 psi (0.61 psi/ft)
C 4
At pt. C: p = weight block 1+2+3 = 465+507+1092 = 2064 psi
(0.74 psi/ft)
ρb(avg) = 2.25 g/cm3 At pt. D: p = weight block 1+2+3+4 = 465+507+1092+2340
2400 feet
= 4404 psi (0.85 psi/ft)
D NOTE: OBG increases with depth and gradually approaches 1.0 psi/ft!
Not to scale!
Water Depth Effect σv Profile
OBG decreases
with increasing
water depth!

Salt Effect σv Profile
Water
OBG in absence of salt layer!
OBG reduced due to

thick salt layer!
Salt

Published σv Correlations
Location and Depth Range

Vertical Stress Formulation References
(where available)
σv [psi] = 0.465dw + 1.13ds - 3188.36 (1-exp[-8.5e-5ds]) Coastline GoM (ft) Eaton (1969)
σv [MPa] = (1.9 ± 1.31) + (0.0339 ± 0.0067)d World (0-2400 m) Hegret (1974)
σv [MPa] = (0.942 ± 1.26) + (0.0266 ± 0.0028)d North America Land (0-1500 m) Lindner & Halpern (1977)
σv [MPa] = 0.027d World Data (0-3000m) Brown & Hoek (1978)
σv [MPa] = 0.0265d World Data (100-3000m) McGarr & Gay (1978)
σv [MPa] = 0.026d – 0.0324d Can. shield (0-2200m) Herget (1987)
σv [MPa] = (0.0266 ± 0.008)d Can. shield (0-2000m) Arjang (1987)
OBG [psi/ft] = OBO + 2.46e-5d - 1.79e-9 d2 + 6.6e-14 d3 – 5.97e-19 d4 GoM (ft) Bryant (1989)
σv [MPa] = (0.0275 - 0.0284)d KTB pilot hole (800-3000m) Baumgarten et al. (1993)
σv [MPa] = 0.0285d Can. shield (0-2300m) Hegret (1993)
σv [MPa] = 0.027d Japan (0-1200m) Sugawara & Obara (1993)
σv [MPa] = (0.0275 - 0.0284)d KTB pilot hole (0-9000m) Te Kamp et al. (1993)
σv [MPa] = 0.233 + 0.024d So. Korea (0-850m) Lim & Lee (1995)
σv [ppg] = (8.5dw + (16.3+( ds /3125)0.6)ds) / d GoM (ft) Traugott (1997)
σv [ppg] = (8.55dw + 5.3ds1.1356) / d GoM (ft) Barker and Wood (1998)
σv [MPa] = 9e-7ds2 + 0.0187ds + 0.0101dw North Sea (m) Svennekjaer & Bratli (1998)
Note: dw = water depth, ds = sediment depth (dbml), d = true vertical depth

OBO = overburden offset (land=0.87, shallow water=0.85, deepwater=0.82)
NOTE: These should only be used as a last resort!

Outline

III. In-situ stress determination techniques
IV. Summary

Typical Log -Based σh Estimation
Log-Based
Conventional Log-based Methods for Determining the
Minimum Horizontal Stress (σh) Magnitude:
• Uniaxial strain method (no horizontal strain and vertical stress is due
to gravity alone) in a tectonically inactive basin (Anderson et al. 1973
and others):
σh = ν/(1-ν)(σV- αPp)+αPp
• Uniaxial strain method in a tectonically active basin (Gatens et al.

1990):
σh = ν/(1−ν)(σV- αPp)+αPp+ σT
where σT is an additional “tectonic” stress used for calibration from measured stress data
such as LOT, DIF’s, etc.

Conventional Hydraulic Fracturing
Hydraulic fracturing is a great source of information about in-situ stress,

formation leak-off properties, and rock permeability (transmissivity).
Several hydraulic fracturing methods available:

• Pump-in / decline tests (LOT, XLOT, mini-fracs)
• Step-rate injection tests
• Pump-in / flow-back tests
Most hydraulic fracturing methods assume the following:

• Rock is linearly elastic
• Borehole is vertical (within ~ 30º→ parallel to a major principal stress axis)
• Overburden stress acts vertically downward and is the maximum in-situ stress (σ1)
• Induced hydraulic fractures are vertical

Fracture Orientation - Normal
Stress Field
Fracture plane is vertical and

parallel to the strike of the fault!
re
Fractu
pl ane
σ1 = σv
Hydraulic
σ2 = σH σ3 = σh fracture
slide modified from Dusseault (2003)

Fracture Orientation – Strike-
slip Faulting
Fracture plane is vertical and

sub-parallel (25º-30º) to the strike
la ne
ep of the fault!
a c tur
Fr
Hydraulic
fracture
σ2 = σv
σ3 = σh
σ1 = σH
Fracture Orientation – Thrust
Faulting
Hydraulic
fracture
p la ne
a c t ure
F r
φ
Fracture plane is horizontal!
σ3 = σv
σ1 = σH σ2 = σh
Conventional Hydraulic
Fracturing Tests Summary
HF Test Method HF Test Name Applications Test Specifications Formation Test
Type Application
test cement/rock integrity, Flow rate: 0.25-2.0 BPM
LOT / XLOT determine max. safe MW, Volume pumped: 10-20 bbls any during drilling
stress measurement Interval length tested: 10-20'
stress measurement and Flow rate: 0.25-25 gpm Volume
Pump-in / decline Mini-frac / Microfrac leakoff coefficient pumped: 0.5-2.5 bbls Interval permeable prior to hyd. frac.
type tests estimation length tested: 3-15'
stress measurement and Flow rate: 5-25 BPM

Pump -in / decline leakoff coefficient Volume pumped: 50-100 bbls permeable prior to hyd. frac.
estimation Interval length tested: 20-50'
Q inj.: 1-10 BPM

Q flowback= (1/6 - 1/4) Q inj
Pump-in/flow back Pump-in/flow back stress measurement low perm. prior to hyd. frac.
Volume pumped: 2-5 bbls
Interval length tested: 10-20'
Q inj: 0.25-20 BPM large interval

Step rate Step rate stress measurement Volume pumped: 10-80 bbls (several prior to hyd. frac.
Interval length tested: >50' formations)

L eak O
Leak ff T
Off est
Test
For the driller, the primary objectives of a LOT are:
Test the integrity of the casing cement job near the casing shoe
Determine the maximum MW that can be withstood by the formation
before initiating a hydraulic fracture
For the geomechanical engineer, the primary objective of a
LOT is:
Create a “small” hydraulically-induced fracture in the rock for stress estimation
LOT – pressure up to formation breakdown

XLOT – same as LOT but continue pumping after formation breakdown to
propagate the fracture

Typical Single Cycle XLOT σh
σH
cement
formation
breakdown
shut-in
LOP
Pressure
frac
Flow rate
prop
Rathole typically
10 – 20 feet! frac. closure press.
Flow rate (Q) typically

between 0.25 – 1.0 BPM
(constant throughout test)
Time
Flow rate Press.

Typical LOT Pressure Response
1000 0.50
900 0.45
Pressure
800
Pump rate 0.40
700 0.35
Pump Rate (bbls/min.)

600 0.30
Pressure (psi)
500 0.25
400 0.20
Note the constant pump rate!
300 0.15
200 0.10
100 0.05
0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Volume Pumped (bbls)

Critical Points of Typical LOT
Pressure Response
1000 0.50
900 0.45
LOP Pressure
800
Pump rate 0.40
700 0.35

600 0.30
Pressure (psi)
500 0.25
400 0.20
300 0.15
200 0.10
100 0.05
0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Leak-off pressure (LOP) – point where the slope of the curve starts to decrease,
deviating from the the best fit straight line at the beginning of the test. This
represents the point at which micro-fractures are forming near the wellbore.
Pressure Response
1000 0.50
Pb
900 0.45
Pressure
800
Pump rate 0.40
700 0.35

600 0.30
Pressure (psi)
500 0.25
400 0.20
300 0.15
200 0.10
100 0.05
0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Breakdown pressure (Pb) – the highest pressure achieved during the test,
corresponding to the formation of a major fracture and large fluid losses.
Pressure Response
1000 0.50
Stop pumping after pressure decrease observed!
900 0.45
Pressure
800
Pump rate
ISIP 0.40
700 0.35

600 0.30
Pressure (psi)
500 0.25
400 0.20
300 0.15
200 0.10
100 0.05
0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP)- first point after the pumps are stopped.

Pressure Response
1000 0.50
900 0.45
Pressure
800
Pump rate 0.40
700 0.35
Closure stress

600 0.30
Pressure (psi)
500 0.25
400 0.20
300 0.15
200 0.10
100 0.05
0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Closure stress- first point after the slope of the curve starts to decrease
just beyond the short linear behavior observed after ISIP
Summary of Critical Points of
Typical LOT Pressure Response
1000 0.50
Pb
900 0.45
LOP Pressure
800
Pump rate
ISIP 0.40
700 0.35
Closure stress

600 0.30
Pressure (psi)
500 0.25
400 0.20
300 0.15
200 0.10
100 0.05
0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NOTE: Closure stress < both ISIP and LOP. Rule of thumb: LOP is 5 - 10%
> than the closure stress.
Problems encountered during
analysis of LOT results
Shallow well in the GOM:
300
End of
pumping
250 LOP
Perhaps a high permeability
200 zone was contacted (and
Min. closure stress
plugged after some time?) Æ
Pressure (psi)
150
better re-test !!!
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Volume (BBLS)

Problems encountered during
analysis of LOT results (cont’d)
Well in the GOM:
1600
End of
pumping
LOP
1400
1200
Pressure (psi)
Min. closure
1000 stress ???
800 Slope shows a permanent decrease

in slope below 700 psi. However, this Min. closure
value is too small to be reliable Æ stress ???
600
Possible channel being contacted
ÆBest option: RE-TEST !!!
400
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (BBLS)

2 Cycle XLOT
From Perkins and Kern :
Pressure
Pb1- Pb2 = To
πγ E
ISIP = σ C +
pump is shut-in! 2 (1 − ν 2 ) L
Pb1
Pb2
Pprop
Note: γ is the fracture
ISIP1 surface energy.
ISIP2
well is re-pressurized
time
1st PRESSURE 2nd PRESSURE
CYCLE CYCLE
As # pressure cycles increase, the length of the induced fractures

grows and the second term becomes less important!
Normally, the value of ISIP tends to decrease asymptotically with
the number of pressure cycles !!!
XLOT
XLOT-- Field Example
51
From Perkins and Kern :

πγE
50
ISIP = σ C +
49 2 (1 − ν 2 ) L
48
ISIP decreases with subsequent cycles
until stabilization at the 5th & 6th cycles
IS IP (M pa )
47
(i.e., fracture length increases).

46
45
44
43
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
LOT Cycle

σH Estimation from LOT & XLOT
For a vertical hole in a normally-stressed environment, fracture initiation occurs when the effective
tangential stress (σ’θθ) exceeds the tensile strength (To) of the rock (i.e, σ’θθ ≤ To). For the case of
an impermeable rock, this is expressed mathematically as:
Pb = 3 σh - σH – αPp + To
Obtained from LOT Tensile strength assumed to be zero or
estimated as 121 UCS (from LMP). If XLOT,
Biot’s constant obtained from LMP To = Pb1-Pb2.
(or assumed to be unity)
Pore pressure obtained from RCI data
or estimated from log data
This represents an upper bound of breakdown pressure!
Solving for σH yields:

0 (pre-existing fractures)
σH = 3σh - Pb – αPp + To
Note: For the case of a pre-existing fracture, tensile strength is zero!
σH Estimation from LOT & XLOT
For a permeable rock, the expression is:
3σ h - σ H - 2η pp + To This represents a
Pb = lower bound of
2(1 - η) breakdown pressure!
α (1 − 2ν )
in which η=
2(1 - ν )
Solving for σH yields:
σH = 3σh - Pb 2(1-η) – 2ηPp + To

Properly Designed LOT/XLOT
In order to fully utilize LOT/XLOT data for stress determination, the following
guidelines should be followed while conducting a LOT/XLOT:
Record downhole pressure
Record flow rate vs time
Record cumulative fluid volume pumped
Record sequence of events during the LOT/XLOT (e.g., report leaks,
report unnecessary shut-ins, etc.)
Maintain constant flow rate during test
Maintain constant fluid viscosity
Report mud weight, type, and temperature used during the test
Report TVD and length of rathole
Conduct multiple cycles XLOT to obtain the tensile strength (To)
and ensure accurate σh estimations

Formation IIntegrity
Formation ntegrity Test
Test
9 Test objective is to test the integrity of the cement and fracture

pressure of the formation below the shoe to a pre-determined amount.
9 The procedure is similar to a LOT except the formation usually is not

fractured or broken down (unless accidentally because the fracturing
pressure is less than anticipated).

FIT- Field Example
3000
Point of deviation from

2500 linearity gives the leak-
off pressure (LOP)
2000
Pressure (psi)
1500
1000
σh ≈ 0.9-0.95 LOP*
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (minutes)
*from Breckels and van Eeklen (1982)

FIT- Field Example
4500
4000
3500 Stopped pumping!
3000
Pressure (psi)
2500
2000
1500
Since the pumps were turned off

1000
prior to an observed LOP, this test is
500 useless!
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Mini-frac Tests
Mini-frac
Mini-fracs are a special kind of pump-in/decline test designed to
measure the closure stress and estimate the leakoff coefficient
in a thin interval just prior to a hydraulic fracturing job!
Typical operational conditions:
• Flow rate: 0.25 - 25 gpm

• Volume injected: 0.5-2.5 bbls
• Interval length: 5 – 15’
packers • Several cycles are conducted to ensure
repeatable results
Interval of interest
• Normally use low viscosity fracturing fluid
Zone between packers is pressured and a hydraulic fracture is initiated,

propagated, and closed. The pressure response during these phases is
recorded and analyzed to determine closure stress and leak-off coefficient!

RCI Straddle Packer Assembly
for Stress Test – micro -frac test
micro-frac
Straddle Packer
(Dual Packer)
Additional Methods for
LOT/minifrac Pressure Analyses
Using normal Cartesian plots for pressure decline analysis
can sometimes be difficult Æ ISIP/Closure Stress is not clear!
BHP
Where is the
ISIP/σc ?
BHP
Shut-in time (min)

ISIP/ σc
Using pressure vs. √time plots is an

additional tool for ISIP/Closure
Stress identification. √Shut-in time (√min)

Semi-log plots are also used; however, they may also be confusing Æ Semi-log
plots for wells A and B show two points with slope change each; which one
represents the closure pressure on each case?
Δ pressure (Δp), psi
time (t), sec
from McLennan and Roegiers (1982)

From well testing we know that the linear flow regime (representing the
fracture) is characterized by a 0.5 slope in a log-log plot. Thus, replotting the
data from wells A and B…
Æ The moment when the fracture closes would be represented by the end of
the linear flow regime !!!
End of linear
regime End of linear
regime
from McLennan and Roegiers (1982)

We can always use the pressure derivative as an additional diagnosis tool…
the end of a plateau (at dp/dt ~ 0.5 ) in the derivative marks the value of
closure stress!
(d log Δp) / (d log Δt) = 0.25…finite conductivity fracture
= 0.5…infinite conductivity fracture
= 1.0…wellbore storage
( Jones & Sargeant, 1993 )
Note: If skin is present, the derivative will simply stabilize at a slightly lower value.
ICFF Æ Infinite Conductivity Fracture Flow.
Pump-in/Decline Tests
Procedure is similar to microfrac (i.e., initiate, propagate and close a

hydraulic fracture) but this test is much larger:
• higher flow rate (up to 20 BPM)
• higher fluid viscosity
• larger injected volume (up to 100 bbls)
Measure the average closure stress over a whole interval (that is why it
needs higher values of rate and injected volume!)
ISIP should not be used for closure stress estimation Æ use a more
robust P vs t analysis
Impractical for low permeability rocks (it would take too long!!!)

Typical Pump-in/decline Test
σC is inferred from the
Stop pumping change of slope!
Bottomhole Pressure
k
dP =
ϕeμCt xf
2 NOTE: This plot is used to
ascertain the minimum hor.
b
CH p E stress after the fracture has
dP =
H2 c formed and propagated!
a
pre-closure post-closure k=permeability, xf=fracture length, φpe=effective porosity,

μ=fluid viscosity, C=fluid loss coefficient, Ct=Cb=total comp.,
Hp=propped fracture height, and H=fracture height.
√ Shut-in time (√Δt)
a) This can occur when contacting a soft (low E), high permeability formation
where the rate of pressure decline can actually increase upon fracture closure.
b) This is the typical case of fracture closure accompanied by decreased leak-off.
c) Theoretically, no slope change may occur making it difficult to identify σc.
Limitations of Pump-in/decline
Tests
According to Gulrajani and Nolte (2000), the change of
slope in the decline analysis may be due to any of the
Bottomhole Pressure
σC ??? following:
• fracture closure
σC ???
• fracture height receding from bounding layers
• transition from fracture extension to recession
• reservoir linear flow
• reservoir radial flow
• postclosure consolidation of filter cake and fracture
√ time (pump shut-in) irregularities
• typical of a radial fracture (or nearly contained) in a
moderate to high permeability, high fluid loss
formation
• possible initial fracture height containment,
followed by fracture growth into higher stress shale
Upshot: Shut-in test should be used in conjunction with other tests as results may
be unreliable!
Pump-in/decline Tests cont’d
However……..As a quality control check the following plot can be used to
verify the fracture closure!
Stop pumping (Δt ≈0)

Bottomhole Pressure
σcl must be above the

start of the pseudo-
radial flow
Pres ? @ Horner time = 1 (i.e., Δt →∞)
Log Horner time

⎛ t p + Δt ⎞
⎜
⎜ Δt ⎟
⎟ *
⎝ ⎠
*Note: tp denotes the pumping time and Δt denotes shut-in time

Pump-in/flowback Tests
Test is usually carried out just prior to a hydraulic fracturing job to obtain σc
Test involves inducing a hydraulic fracture, injection into the fracture followed
by a constant flow-back rate
Flow-back rate to be used during testing must initially be estimated
Normally intended for low permeability formations
The pressure response during flow-back differs during fracture closing and
after the fracture has closed resulting in a slope change in the pressure versus
time plot
Typical operational parameters:
• Injection rate (Qinj): 1-10 BPM
• Volume pumped: 2-5 Bbls
1 1
• Qflowback = 6 to 4 Qinj

Pump-in/flowback Tests
Ideal Test Result
BHP
BHP
q too low (re-test) A

B
σcl
Ide
“lazy S” shape
al
C
q too high (re-test)
pump-in pump-in
√ time (pump Shut-in) √ time (pump Shut-in)
fracture open
A Æ Pw > σcl Kfr infinite
fracture closing near wellbore

B Æ Pw ~ σcl Kfr finite
fracture closing far from the wellbore

C Æ Pw < σcl Kfr very small
Note: Kfr = fracture conductivity (k*wfr) where k is the fracture permeability and wfr is the average fracture width
Step Rate Tests
• Objective is to measure the closure pressure in “gross”
completion intervals (i.e., several formations being tested
simultaneously Æhfr > 50 ft)
• Performed with higher fluid viscosity, higher flow rates, and
larger cumulative volumes than micro-frac tests
p
Rate / Pressure
Pressure
pext
σcl
Pext ≈ σ cl + 100 or 200 psi
Shut-in time (min) Inj. Rate
• Each rate step should have the same hold time (typically 2 to 3 min)
• 0.25 bpm < Flow rate < 20 bpm

• Hydraulic (active) measurements
• Strain recovery
¾ASR
¾DSCA
• Log-based
• Other methods

Strain Recovery Methods
Once a rock core is physically removed from its in-situ position, the rock deforms
(relaxes). Elastic strain occurs immediately upon unloading followed by longer-
term anelastic strain.
Differential expansion
creates micro-cracks
σ3 εmin perpendicular to the
maximum principal stress
direction (Nur &
Simmons, 1970)!
Stress Unloading
in-situ
σ1 εmax
rock
Field measurements (see for example Warpinski and Teufel, 1989) have indicated that the
greatest expansion occurs in the direction of maximum principal stress (σ1) and the least
expansion occurs in the direction of minimum principal stress (σ3)!
Strain Recovery Methods
Anelastic Strain Recovery (ASR) Differential Strain Curve Analysis
(DSCA)
Objective: Record strain due to stress Objective: Record induced strain due
unloading as soon as the core is retrieved. to hydrostatic loading of a previously
εmin unloaded core sample.
εmin σc
σc
εmax εmax εmax
σc σc
Strain gages (at least 6) are placed on a core sample Strain gages are placed on core sample after
immediately upon core retrieval to measure strain unloading from the in-situ stress conditions. The core
relief. The recorded strain values are then used in a is then hydrostatically loaded and the recorded strain
constitutive model to determine the magnitude of the values are then used in a constitutive model to
in-situ stresses. determine the magnitude of the in-situ stresses.
Typical ASR Equipment
Strain
gages NOTE:
Stringent core handling
procedures must be
followed to prevent core
de-hydration, thermal
strains, etc. as well as to
ensure precise core
orientation!

Generalized ASR Measurements
t0 Time sample cored
ε0 Instantaneous
t1 Sample strain gaged
elastic strain at
instant of coring t2 End of measurements
Strain (ε)
ε0 − ε1 Component of elastic and

Elastic limit anelastic strain relaxation
(prior to recording)
Anelastic strain
prior to core ε1 − ε2 Component of anelastic strain
ε1 retrieval
relaxation (recorded)
recorded strain
ε2
Viscous (time-dependant strain continues)
t0 t1 t2 Time

ASR
ASR-- Field Example
250
core cutting
and retrieval core strain recording strain unchanged
200
εv
εH
Strain (ε) [microstrain]
150
NOTE:
After 40 hours
the strain no longer
changes!
100
εh
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time [hours]
(from Teufel & Warpinski 1984)
ASR Constitutive Models
Two common models (Blanton’s-1983 & Warpinski and Teufel-1989) are used to
describe the constitutive behavior of rock during rock unloading. These models are
excellent for obtaining stress directions but are not as efficient at determining
the in-situ stress magnitudes.
The assumptions applied in the two models are as follows*:
• Principal stress directions coincide with the principal strain directions obtained from
the strain data
• The magnitude of the overburden is known
• The rock is isotropic and homogeneous (i.e., no micro-cracks exist in-situ)
• The borehole is vertical
• The rock follows linearly viscoelastic behavior (time-dependant)
• Unloading of stresses is instantaneous upon cutting of the core
• Poisson’s ratio and Biot’s pore pressure constant remain unchanged during relaxation
• Creep (anelastic relaxation) follows an exponential behavior
• Bulk modulus of the rock is not viscoelastic
*Note: assumptions common to both models are depicted in black, assumptions specific to Blanton’s model are shown in red while
assumptions specific to Warpinski and Teufel are depicted in blue.
Blanton’s ASR Model
Blanton’s model* was derived on the basis that the two horizontal stresses
can be calculated from elastic expressions using the changes in the principal
strains for a given time Increment. Mathematically, the expressions are:
(1−ν)ΔεH + ν(Δεh + Δεv)

σH = (σv + αPp) + αPp
(1−ν)Δεv + ν(Δεh + ΔεH)
(1−ν)Δεh + ν(ΔεH + Δεv)

σh = (σv + αPp) + αPp
(1−ν)Δεv + ν(Δεh + ΔεH)
where Δεi is the change in principal strain with respect to a given time increment in the ith direction,
ν is Poisson’s ratio, α is Biot’s constant, Pp is the pore pressure and σv is the vertical (overburden) stress.
*from Blanton (1983)

Differential Strain Curve Analysis
(DSCA)
Objective: Hydrostatically load the rock sample and record the resulting strain.
Y
Lab Methodology
10 1) 1.5-2” cubical sample is prepared from an oriented
2 3 whole core and the surfaces are ground smooth, cleaned
and covered with a silicon jacket to prevent pore fluid
X 4
1 45º invasion.
2) Sample is strain gaged (rosette pattern of 0º, 45º, 90º

9 5
so that directional deformation can be measured).
12 3) Sample is hydrostatically loaded (σ1=σ2=σ3) and

unloaded beyond the estimated in-situ level (3 cycles).
11
8 6 4) Recorded strain data are used to calculate the
7 microcrack closure strain and subsequently infer
stress direction and magnitudes (assuming
differential strains are directly related to in-situ
Position of the 12 strain gages stress).
used in a typical DSCA test
(after Strickland and Ren, 1980).
A 9 gage test can also be conducted. Z
Pressure vs Volumetric Strain
Linear elastic response For homogeneous, isotropic rock:
ΔV
Hydrostatic Confining Pressure (σc)
K = σc
V
where K is the bulk modulus of the rock, V is
the original sample volume, ΔV is the change
in sample volume and σc is the confining pressure.
Typical DSCA response
For microfractured rock (Walsh, 1965):
ΔV = C σ + η(σ )
V b c c
where η represents microcrack porosity

(as function of pressure) and Cb is the
ΔV intrinsic rock compressibility ( K1 ).
Volumetric Strain, V

Pressure vs Volumetric Strain
For microfractured rock (Walsh, 1965):
Linear elastic portion

ΔV
Confining Pressure (σc)
(microcracks closed) = C b σ c + η( σ c )
V
pc
microcrack porosity
ηo Cbpc ΔV
Critical crack pressure (pc) Volumetric Strain, V
(pressure above which all
microcracks have closed)
Note: ηo = initial microcrack porosity
Typical DSCA Plot
Measured strain (ε) from the 1, 2, 3, and 10 gages on the X-Y face of the sample.
microcrack closure
Y ε crack rock strain from

strain compressibility 3
10
2 3 2
X 4
1 45º
1
9 5
10
12 11
8 6
7
Z
σc
DSCA Data Analysis
In DSCA, the data is used to determine the crack strain tensor within the
linear portion of the strain-pressure curve prior to crack closure
(Strickland and Ren, 1980).
The microcrack closure strain [ηi(p)] at a given conf. pressure (σc) in
the ith direction is calculated as the difference between the measured
average strain [εi(σc)] and the bulk rock compressibility [Cb σc].
Mathematically, this is written as: ηi(σc) = εi(σc) – Cb σc.
The analysis is usually done by determining the crack strain tensor over
a pressure range or: Obtained from lab testing
ηij(σc) = εij(σc) + ηo(pc) – Cb σc
The principal crack closure strains (ηp1, ηp2, ηp3) and their orientation
are then obtained. It is assumed that these directions correspond to the
principal stress directions!
Note: ηo(pc) = initial microcrack porosity
DSCA Data Analysis
According to Ren and Roegiers (1983), for isotropic media the stresses can
then be obtained from the following expressions:
σ1 ησc1 (1 − ν ) + ν(ησ c 2 + ησc 3 )

=
σ3 ησc 3 (1 − ν ) + ν(ησc1 + ησc 2 )
σ 2 ησc 2 (1 − ν ) + ν(ησ c1 + ησc 3 )

=
σ3 ησc 3 (1 − ν ) + ν(ησc1 + ησc 2 )

• Strain recovery
• Log-based
¾Borehole breakouts
¾Tensile fractures
• Other methods

σH Estimation using Breakouts
σH
Breakouts
σh
Breakout width, w
(degrees)
NOTE: Breakouts form when the maximum

effective tangential stress exceeds the
rock strength. Breakouts always form in
the direction of the minimum in-plane
stress (σh in the case of a vertical hole)!
Breakouts from Image Logs
Breakout location (with respect

to Earth Coordinate System)
Breakouts
Breakout width (w)
Upshot: Breakout location and breakout width are recorded from image
logs and used to estimate the maximum horizontal stress (σH)!
Breakouts form when the compressive stress exceeds the compressive
strength of the rock!
According to Mohr-Coulomb, this occurs when:

σ’1=UCS + σ’3 tan2(π/4+φ/2)
where σ’1 is the maximum effective principal stress acting on the wellbore wall, σ’3 is the minimum effective
principal stress and φ is the internal friction angle.
For a vertical well with anisotropic horizontal stresses, the effective

tangential stress, σ’θθ for an impermeable borehole wall is given by:
σ’θθ =σH+σh-2(σH-σh)cos2θ -Pw- αPp
NOTE: If Pw ↓, σ’θθ ↑ and vice versa
Upshot: σ’θθ becomes highly compressive as wellbore pressure is decreased!

Borehole Breakout Calculations
Calculations--
BIAS
When stress exceeds the confined

strength, breakouts form!
breakout breakout
width width
Requires knowledge of breakout location, breakout width and minimum

horizontal stress orientation!
In a vertical well at the wellbore wall, breakouts typically occur when:
σ’1 = σ’θθ and σ’3 = σ’rr

where σ’rr = Pw - αPp
Substituting the expressions for σ’1 and σ’3 into the Mohr-Coulomb
criterion yields:
σH+σh-2(σH-σh)cos2θ -Pw- αPp > UCS+(Pw-αPp) tan2θ(π/4+φ/2)
For a given breakout width (w) at a given depth one has:

σH+σh-2(σH-σh)cos2(90-w/2) -Pw- αPp =UCS+(Pw−αPp) tan2(π/4+φ/2)
Estimated from LMP

Estimated from log-based expressions Estimated from Pp
prediction analysis
Known from driller
Estimated from image logs

Borehole Stress & Breakout
(vertical well)
Re-arranging gives:
C + Pw + αPp − σ h [1 − 2 cos w ]
σH =
1 + 2 cos w
where C = UCS + (Pw - α Pp) tan2(π/4 + φ/2) = confined compressive strength and
w = breakout width [degrees]
The maximum horizontal stress (σH) profile can then be estimated by:
σH = x*σh or y + σh
where x = σH/σh at the depth of breakout and y = σH – σh at the depth of breakout.

Breakouts from Caliper Logs
Common Borehole Geometries
In-gauge hole bit size

breakout washout
tool tool tool
NOTE: The calipers indicate hole

elongation (E-W) but the hole is
actually washed out! Thus, breakout
key seating pipe abrasion
missed breakout direction is potentially inaccurate.
tool
tool Breakout missed due to

lack of pad coverage in
large hole.

Breakout ID: Caliper Logs
Plumb and Hickman (1985) Criteria*

1) Tool rotation ceases in the zone of elongation.
2) Differential caliper is greater than 6 mm.
3) Smaller caliper readings should be close to bit size.
4) If smaller caliper reading is slightly greater than bit size, it should
exhibit less variation than the larger caliper.
5) Height of the elongated zone should be greater than the pad length.
6) The direction of elongation should not consistently coincide with
the azimuth of the high side of the hole in non-vertical wellbores. This
may indicate key seating!
NOTE: These criteria give only a rough estimate of borehole breakout
location and therefore exact breakout width is very difficult to ascertain!
*These criteria were originally developed for a 4-arm caliper device but can also be applied to 6-arm calipers!
Breakout Characterizations
9 Borehole geometry can be described combining information from 6-arm

caliper (breakout length) and acoustic image log (breakout size)
9 The breakout characteristics are useful in describing in-situ stresses as
well as calibrating the geomechanical models
Log-Based Stress Determination
Log-Based
Alternative Methods for Determination of Minimum &
Maximum Horizontal Stress Magnitudes (Strain Method):
•Assume the vertical stress causes constant horizontal strains,

isothermal case (Prats, 1981 and Warpinski & Smith, 1989):
σh = ν/(1-ν)(σV- αPp) + αPp +(εh+νεH)E/(1-ν2)
σH = ν/(1-ν)(σV- αPp) + αPp +(εH+νεh)E/(1-ν2)
•Assume the vertical stress causes constant horizontal strains,

non-isothermal case (Blanton & Olson, 1997):
σh = ν/(1-ν)(σV- αPp) + αPp +(εh+νεH + A)E/(1-ν2)
σH = ν/(1-ν)(σV- αPp) + αPp +(εH+νεh + A)E/(1-ν2)
In which A = (1+ν)ατ∆Τ is a temperature term where αt is the thermal expansion coefficient of the rock and ∆T is the temperature at a
particular depth minus the ambient surface temperature (ºF ). Typical values of αt are (Clark, 1966): 5.56 E-6/ºF (sandstone), 5.00 E-
6/ºF (shale) and 4.44 E-6/ºF (carbonates).
Calibration to Breakout, Vertical
Well (isothermal case)
Breakout width measured at two
depths, A & B:
A σHA+σhA-2(σHA-σhA)cos2(90-wA/2)–PwA- αΑPpA =sA
σHA = νΑ/(1-νΑ)(σVA- αΑPpA)+αΑPpA+(εH+νεh)EA/(1-νΑ2)

σhA= νΑ/(1-νΑ)(σVA- αΑPpA)+αΑPpA+(εh+νεH)EA/(1-νΑ2)
B σResults
HB+σ hB-2(σ
not valid in
HB-σhB)cos2(90-wB/2)–PwB- αΒPpB =sB
σHB = νΒ/(1-νΒ)(σVB- αΒPpB)+αΒPpB+(εH+νεh)EB/(1-νΒ2)

σhB= νΒ/(1-νΒ)(σVB- αΒPpB)+αΒPpB+(εh+νεH)EB/(1-νΒ2)
Solve equations for εH & εh to

calculate complete stress profile!

σh Methods Comparison
If no lateral strain: If constant tectonic stress: If constant lateral strain:

(conventional-uncalibrated) (conventional- calibrated) (strain method)
σh = ν/(1-ν)(σV- αPp)+αPp σh = ν/(1-ν)(σV- αPp)+αPp+ΔσT σh = ν/(1-ν)(σV- αPp)+αPp+

+εhE/(1-ν2)
σh = Minimum horizontal stress magnitude Pp = Pore pressure

ν = Poisson’s ratio (isotropic) εh = Horizontal strain
σV = Vertical stress magnitude E = Young’s Modulus
α = Biot’s coefficient
Conventional vs Strain Method -
Example
ss
Strain method provides

a better match with
ss
the measured stress data!
sh
ss
Calibration point
sh
ss
sh
From Blanton & Olson (1997)

• Log-based
¾Borehole breakouts
¾Tensile fractures
• Other methods
¾ Stress Maps
¾ Acoustic methods (Kaiser effect, DWVA, shear wave
anisotropy)

World Stress Map
Http:///www-gpi.physik.uni-karlshruhe.de/wsm/maps/

In -situ Shear Wave Splitting
In-situ
• Stress anisotropy causes splitting of the shear

waves (faster and slower shear waves traveling
at different speeds). The S-wave velocities and
directions can be measured using Baker Atlas’
XMAC© acoustic anisotropy tool.
• The azimuth of maximum attenuation of S-

waves propagated vertically through a
specimen is obtained and plotted to determine
the maximum in-plane normal stress.
NOTE: Formation anisotropy can be caused by:

• Unequal principal stresses
• Oriented fractures and/or pores
• Structural layering as in shales

Acoustic (shear wave) Anisotropy
Shear wave map

indicates
high degree of anisotropy
in the N-S direction. This
indicates the possible
maximum horizontal
stress direction!

Acoustic Velocity Analysis
• Due to anisotropic stress removal, microcrack formation takes place in the direction
perpendicular to the maximum in-plane stress (σH for the case of a vertical wellbore).
• The test is usually performed on vertical cores.
• There is no critical time to perform the test (as is the case in ASR). Therefore testing can be
conducted on old cores.
• Tests can be conducted under any stress/pore pressure conditions (higher stresses cause
pores to close resulting in an increase in acoustic velocity).
• The orientation of the minimum compressional and shear wave velocities is perpendicular
to the microcrack orientation whereas the maximum velocities occur parallel to microcracks.
σH
VP(max), Vs(max), A(min) (Min. Attenuation)
VP(min), Vs(min), A(max) (Max. Attenuation)

Typical P -Wave Velocity Test
P-Wave
P-wave
transmitter
σH, VPmin
P-wave is measured diametrically
receiver
σh, VPmax
along azimuthal increments
P-wave Anisotropy
5200
P-wave Velocity (m/sec)
5000
4800
4600
4400
4200
4000
0 σH 90 σh 180 270 360
direction direction
Azimuth (degrees)

Typical S -Wave Velocity Test
S-Wave
S-wave Amplitude
5200
transmitter
5000
S-wave Amplitude
S-wave
4800
4600
4400
receiver
4200
4000
0
σH direction 90σh direction 180 270 360
Azimuth (degrees)
σH, VSmin
σh, VSmax

The Kaiser Effect
• A rock sample will yield acoustic signals (sub- audible noises) when
subjected to loading in the laboratory. The Kaiser effect occurs when
the rate of acoustic signals drastically increases. This occurs when the
applied stress surpasses the load previously experienced by the rock
(Kaiser, 1953).
• In the lab, a core is subjected to a sequence of stresses. In the first

cycle of loading, a high-frequency sound burst is emitted. However, in
subsequent cycles, there is an absence of these emissions until the
previous maximum stress is surpassed.

The Kaiser Effect
σmax = Maximum Burial Stress in

σi Direction i
AE (Acoustic Emission) Activity
NOTE: Some rocks

lose their memory
of previous loading in
as little as a few days
(Holcomb, 1993).
σi
Upshot: Kaiser effect
may yield erroneous
results!
σmax σi

Published σH and σh Correlations
Horizontal Stress Formulation Location and Depth Range References
σH [MPa] = 4.6 + 0.025d
Michigan Basin (0-5000m) Haimson (1977)
σh [MPa] = 1.4 + 0.018d
σh = 0.197d1.145 (d ≤11500 ft)
Gulf of Mexico (all depths- ft) Breckels & van Eekelen (1982)
σh = 1.167d – 4596 (d > 11500 ft)
ΚH = 0.98 + 250/d
World Data (500-3000m) Rummel (1986)
Κh = 0.65 + 440/d
ΚH = 1.46 + 357/d
Canadian Shield (0-2200m) Hegret (1987)
Κh = 1.10 + 167/d
σH [MPa] = 15 + 0.028d
Cornwall, UK (0-2000m) Pine & Kwakwa (1989)
σh [MPa] = 6 + 0.012d
σH [MPa] = 8.8 + 0.0422d
Canadian Shield (0-2000m) Arjang (1989)
σh [MPa] = 3.64 + 0.0276d
σH [MPa] = 30.4 + 0.023d
KTB pilot hole (800-3000m) Baumgarten et al. (1993)
σh [MPa] = 16.0 + 0.011d
σH [MPa] = 9.1 + 0.0724d
Fennoscandia: (0-1000m) Hast (in Stephansson 1993)
σh [MPa] = 5.3 + 0.0542d
σH [MPa] = 2.8 + 0.0399d
Fennoscandia: (0-9000m) Stephansson (1993)
σh [MPa] = 2.2 + 0.0240d
σH [MPa] = 15.83 + 0.0302d
KTB pilot hole (0-9000m) Te Kamp et al. (1993)
σh [MPa] = 6.52 + 0.01572d
Note: KH = σH/σv and Kh = σh/σv
NOTE: These should only be used as a last resort!

Outline

III. Commonly used stress determination techniques
IV. Summary

In -situ Stress Workflow
In-situ
Analyze data/
Daily drill reports
Calculate
overburden
stress
Pore
pressure Calculate minimum Conduct geomechanical
estimation horizontal stress (σh) analysis – borehole
magnitude and direction. stability, sand
Calibrate using stress production, hydraulic
Determine rock measurement techniques. fracturing, etc.
mechanical properties
(LMP)
Calculate maximum
horizontal stress (σH)
magnitude and direction.
Fine tune using borehole
image logs and other
field/drilling observations.

In -situ Stress Puzzle
In-situ
Active Passive
)Mini-Frac )Breakouts
)LOT/ELOT )Fractures
)FMT/RCI )Acoustic All info must be
Anisotropy integrated to build a
Integration consistent in-situ
BIAS stress model!!!!
Existing Inf. Core Based

)History )DSA
)Stress maps )ASR
)Geology )Kaiser effect
In-Situ Stress Regimes

Pore Pressure Characterizations
Outline
I. Why pore pressure prediction is important

II. Basics of abnormal pore pressure
III. Pore pressure determination methods

Why is Pore Pressure Est.
Important?
> 40% of trouble time attributed to Geomechanics/Pressure related incidences.
These account for 24-27% of total drilling costs.*
0.8%
21.4%
Directional Completion
Cement Squeeze
11.4% Chemical Problems
Wait on Weather
3.0% Casing or Wellhead Failure
5.2%
Geomechanics/ Rig Failure
Pressure- 9.0% Other
42.3%
related incidences Stuck Pipe
Twist Off
12.8% Kick
13.4% Lost Circulation
2.8% Sloughing Shale
Wellbore Instability
0.7%
Shallow Water Flow
2.7% 2.6%
Gas Flow
9.4% 0.3%
5.0%
*Data taken from Dodson et al. (2004). Data illustrates incidences from 549 GoM shelf wells (<600 ft water depth) drilled from 1993-2002.

What is a Shallow Water Flow?
Shallow Water Flows (SWF): Water/debris flow along the
outside of structural casing to the seafloor.
Causes of SWF
1. Geopressured sands within conductor intervals: Excessive sand pressures
cause SWF’s prior to installation of riser and BOP- no closed system to contain
riser geopressure!
2. Induced fractures: Mud pressure at the casing shoe exceeds the formation
tensile strength and induces a hydraulic fracture, resulting in a conduit of fluid
flow to the seafloor.
ρwater 3. Induced storage: Permeable formations are “charged” by excessive MW
resulting in flowback once circulation is ceased.
4. Transmission of geopressure through cement channels: Poor cement jobs
provide a conduit of fluid flow. This is typically time-delayed as there is more
time required to flow through the cement channels.
ρmud
Ramifications of SWF
1. Flowing water may cause deterioration of the structural support of the well
sand leading to casing buckling and/or collapse.
2. Loss of well control.
Thus, there is a need to predict SWF in advance!

Typical GoM PP Profiles
Deepwater formations often encounter abnormal
pressures directly below the mud-line; which can lead
to a much narrower MW window.
Shelf Deepwater
PRESSURE PRESSURE
O
ve SWF (shallow water flow)
rb
ur
de
n O
(li ve
th
os rb
σ’ = σ - Pp
Fr
σ’ = σ - Pp
ta ur
ac
tic de
tu
) n
re
Pr
Hy
Pr
es
es
dro
su
Effective
s
re
ur
sta
Fr
DEPTH
DEPTH
e
ac
Stress (σ’)
ti
tu
Pore Pressure (Pp)
cP
re
Pr
res
es
Tran Pore Pressure (Pp)
su
sitio
s ur
n Zone
re
e
Ge
Hy
op
dro
res
sta
GEO PRESSURE
su
re
tic
Pre
Effective Stress (σ’)

ssu
re

Typical DW GoM Casing
Program
4000
6000
8000
Depth [feet-tvdrkb]
10000
hydrostatic
12000
Planned MW
14000
PPG FG
16000
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Equivalent Mud Weight [lbs/gal]
Note: PPG = pore pressure gradient, FG = fracture gradient

Unexpected Overpressured
Zone
4000
6000
8000
Depth [feet-tvdrkb]
10000 Planned MW
12000
hydrostatic
potential
14000
kick zone
PPG FG
or spalling
shale (Pp>Pw)
16000
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Unexpected Depleted Zone
4000
6000
8000 Fracturing in depleted zone

(and possibly losses!)
Depth [feet-tvdrkb]
10000
hydrostatic
12000
14000
PPG FG
16000
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Outline

II. Basics of abnormal pore pressure

Pore Pressure: The Basics
Pressure
Normally (hydrostatic) Pressured Reservoirs
¾ Rocks which have pore pressures equal to a
Depth
continuous column of water from surface to depth

lith of interest (typically 8.3-8.9 PPG range).
os
tat
hyd
ic
ros
tati
c
under over Abnormally Pressured Reservoirs

pressure pressure ¾ Rocks which have pore pressures significantly
greater than hydrostatic (overpressured) or less
than hydrostatic (underpressured).

Pore Pressure: The Basics
Normal Compaction Behavior
Fluid pressure Sea level
Sedimentation
True vertical depth, m
Water is expelled due to the compaction

of sediments
grain Fluid
The column is supported by the

Hydrostatic grain to grain contact.
pressure

Mechanisms of Overpressure
Causal mechanisms of overpressure include the following:
Æ Stress-related (pore volume reduction)

• Disequilibrium compaction (vertical stress loading without fluid pressure dissipation)
• Tectonic (lateral) stress loading (faulting, salt dome emplacement)
Æ Fluid volume increase (pore volume expansion)
• Increased temperature (pore fluid expansion)
• Water release due to mineral transformation (smectite to illite transformation)
• Hydrocarbon cracking These are the most likely
• Hydrocarbon generation from kerogen mechanisms to result in large
scale overpressure
Æ Fluid movement and buoyancy (Swarbrick & Osborne, 1998)
• Osmosis (brine concentration contrasts across semi-perm membranes)
• Hydraulic head (increased potentiometric head from highlands)
• Buoyancy due to density contrasts between fluid type (oil, gas, water)

Fluid pressure Sea level
Hydrostatic Compaction in an
pressure undrained condition
True vertical depth, m
Part of the Overburden is

supported by the pore fluid.
Overpressure
• Fast sedimentation
• Low permeability (clay sediments)

Overburden
Normal Compaction
1 - 1.07 sg
Overpressure top
1.19 - 1.68 sg
Under Compaction
Overpressure
Under Compaction
+ > 1.80 sg
Other Mechanisms Fluid expansion
Bowers GL, 2001

0.9
Pressure vs. Temperature for GoM Wells
(Timko &Fertl, 1971)
0.8
Pp Gradient (psi/ft)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
60 100 140 180 240 280 320 360
Temperature (oF)
Relationship between Porosity – Depth and Pore Pressure
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0
Porosity-Depth Relationships Porosity
Normal mud
compaction
line for
sandstone
clay
Normal
compaction
line for clay mud-
stone
and shale
shale
Overpressure
effect on porosity
4-8 km
Depth
Pressure
Overburden stress
Overpressure top
Depth
Effective
stress
Pore
pressure
Normal
hydrostatic Overpressure
pressure

Buoyancy Effect
Gas or oil Sand
za
za= 2000 ft
Sealed Fault zb= 3000 ft
ρg= 0.12 psi/ft
zb
Oil - Water contact (or Gas)
Water Formation Sand
PB = 0.465 (psi/ft) * 3000 ft = 1395 psi
PA = PB – (Zb –Za)*ρg* g
PA = 1395 psi – (1000 ft)*0.12 psi/ft = 1275 psi
PP Gradient = 1275psi/2000 ft = 0.638 psi/ft

Artesian System
PP = 0.465 psi/ft * (10000-2000) ft = 3720 psi

GPP = 3720 psi /2000 ft = 1.86 psi/ft
Z=10,000 ft
Z=2,000 ft

Mechanisms of Underpressure
Underpressure is caused by:
Æ Rock & fluid property change due to uplifting

• Reduction in temperature (leading to reduction in pressure via fluid shrinkage)
• Rock dilatancy (due to lower temperature and stress)
• Groundwater discharge (accompanied by a lower permeability recharge zone)
• Gas solubility (gas exsolves out of solution at a greater rate than gas generation to
due decrease temp. and pressure at uplifted stage)
• Osmotic flow (via semi-perm membrane)

Mechanisms of Underpressure
PP = 0.465 psi/ft * 7000 ft = 3255 psi

GPP = 3255 psi /10000 ft = 0.33 psi/ft
Z=10000 ft
Z=7000 ft

Outline

II. Basics of pore pressure

Pore Pressure Prediction Process
Calculate overburden
Calculate PP using several techniques

• Eaton (res/sonic/Dxc/cond)
• Bryant (res)
• Alixant (if geothermal gradient known)
• Others
Evaluate secondary parameters

(gas/geology/torque/drag/fill etc.)
Review possible effects of tectonics/

other mechanisms
(faults/dipping beds/salt)
Techniques should agree within 0.5 PPG! Fine tune and calibrate
PP models

Pressure Prediction Process -
Data
Use all the data sources available, both primary and
secondary. No one data source, alone, gives an accurate
pressure prediction.
• Seismic (velocity/Δt)
• Wireline (res / sonic / den / gam / calip)
• MWD (res / gamma / sonic / density)
• RCI (measured reservoir pressures)
• Mud logs (gas / cuttings / lithology)
• Fluids (mud density / hole cleaning)
• IADC (wellbore stability/problems)

Pore Pressure indicators

PP Determination Techniques
Pore pressure (PP) determination methods can be broadly categorized into
two general methods:
1. Direct Methods- Methods which directly relate the amount of pore

pressure divergence from its normal trendline to the
pore pressure gradient at a given depth.
2. Effective Stress Methods- Methods which are based on Terzaghi’s

(1943) effective stress principle: compaction
of porous material is controlled by the
difference between total confining pressure
and the pore fluid pressure.

Direct Methods
Methods-- example
Published examples of Hottman & Johnson Overlays Constructed
For a given resistivity ratio, the for Various Regions
1.0 PPG is estimated based on 1.0 Frio
regional curves Wilcox

South
China
Sea
0.9 0.9
Pore Pressure Gradient [psi/ft]

Pore Pressure Gradient [psi/ft]
Vicksburg Gulf
Coast
0.8 0.8 Vicksburg

Niger Delta Basin
Frio
Niger Delta Basin

0.7 Gulf Wilcox
0.7
PPG=0.65 psi/ft Coast
South
0.6 China 0.6
Sea Wyoming Sedimentary
Basin
0.5 0.5
Wyoming Sedimentary
Basin
0.4 0.4
1 2 5 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
(data taken from Owolabi et. al, 1990)
Log Rn/Ro Δto - Δtn
Rn & Ro are the “normal” and observed resistivity and Δtn & Δto are the “normal” and observed interval transit times.
NOTE: Since each region has a different signature, the overlay method is region specific. Additionally, it is
necessary to construct new curves for new regions or whenever new geological horizons are encountered
(Matthews & Kelly, 1967)!
Effective Stress Methods
Effective stress methods are generally categorized into the following:
Vertical Effective Stress Methods- These methods assume that normally

pressured and overpressured sections which exhibit identical properties are
subjected to the same effective stress.
Horizontal Effective Stress Methods- These methods are used to calculate
the effective stress from the difference between observed and normal trend
parameters at a given depth.
Other Effective Stress Methods- These methods represent all other
published methods that are used to obtain the relationship between
compaction and effective stress.
NOTE: These are the methods that will be examined in detail for the remainder
of this session!

S = total stress Pressure Required to Keep
σ = effective stress Water & Rock Grains from
Overburden Stress
Squashing Out Horizontally
SV
P σV
Sh P σh
Total
Stress
= Pore
Pressure
+ Effective
Stress
σh
SV = P + σV K= = Effective Stress Ratio;
σV
Sh = P + σh = P + K σV “K” increases with ductility.

Vertical Effective Stress
Velocity (Km/s) Pressure (Mpa)
Normal Compaction
Trend Trend
Velocity (Km/s)
Depth (m)
Effective Stress (Mpa)

Vertical Effective Stress – Equivalent Depth Foster & Whalen(1966)
Dt
The effective stress in A and B are

considered to be equal (since the state
of compaction is equivalent)
Zeq A
PB = S B − (S A − PNA )
Depth
Z B where:
P = Pore pressure (psi)
S = Overburden
σ = Effective stress

Vertical Effective Stress – Equivalent Depth Traugott (1997)
Dt
This method uses the mean stress Î

σM =
(σ + σ h + σ H )
3
Zeq A
⎛ 1 + 2K A ⎞
PB = S B − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟( S A − PNA )
Depth
⎝ 1 + 2K B ⎠
where :
Z B P = Pore Pressure (psi)
S = Overburden
σ = Vertical Effective stress
K = σh=σH/σ

Horizontal Effective Stress
Velocity (Km/s) Pressure (Mpa)
Eq. Eaton
Velocity (Km/s)
Depth (m)
Normal
Trend
Effective Stress (Mpa)
S = total stress
σ = effective stress

Horizontal Effective Stress: Eaton’s Method (1975)
3
⎛V ⎞
σ = σ N ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ 3
⎝ VN ⎠ ⎛ V ( D) ⎞
Pp ( D) = S ( D) − (S ( D) − PN ( D) )⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎛ Δt N ⎞
3
σ =σN⎜ ⎝ VN ( D ) ⎠
⎟
⎝ Δt ⎠
1.2
⎛ R ⎞ where :
σ = σ N ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ P = Current Pore Pressure
⎝ RN ⎠ S = Overburden
1.2 D = Current Depth
⎛ Dxc ⎞ PN = Normal Pore Pressure
σ = σ N ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ VN = Normal Compaction Velocity
⎝ DxcN ⎠

Other Effective Stress: Bower’s Method (1995)
Based on
acoustic/velocity Concept of Virgin Curve
data using a V
modified equivalent
depth type method VMAX
that calculates
effective stress
Sub-Compaction
along Bower’s
derived curved
trend line. This σMAX σ
method is useful Normal
for correcting Compaction
for unloading by
manipulating
several variables. • Power trend of Compaction

U
⎛ σA ⎞
σ B = σ max ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ σ max ⎠
where :
A = Equivalent depth
σA = Effective stress at equivalent
depth
σmax = Effective stress at Vmax
Vmax = Maximum velocity
U = Calibration parameters (local
data)



Table of PPP Methods
PPP Approach Method Type Name PP Indicator Expression(s)
Rn
Crossplots Hottman and Johnson (1965) Acoustic/Resistivity X= X = Δt o − Δ t n
Direct Ro
Δto
Overlays Pennebaker (1968) Acoustic/Resistivity X=
Δtn
Equivalent Depth Acoustic/Resistivity P(b ) = σ v (b ) − (σ v (a ) − Pn (a ) )
⎛ 1 + 2 K (a ) ⎞
Mean Stress Equivalent Depth Acoustic/Resistivity P(b ) = σ v (b ) − ⎜ ⎟ (σ − Pn (a ) )
⎜ 1 + 2 K ⎟ v (a )
⎝ (b ) ⎠
Bellotti and Giacca (1978) Acoustic σ' =

(Vo − Vm i n )B
Vm at − A (Vo − Vmi n )
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
1 ⎜ φo ⎟
Effective Stress Vertical Hart and Flemings (1995) Acoustic σ ' = ln ⎜ ⎟
η ⎜ 1
⎟
⎛
⎜1−⎜ V ⎞ X
⎟
⎜
o
⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎝ Vmat ⎠ ⎠
Rw
σ = σ max (1 − φ ) φ=
Bryant (1989) Resistivity ' α
Ro
[ri − w ] / l c φ
Alixant and Desbrandes (1991) Resistivity
σ ' = 10 w=
(1 − φ)
Symbols: σv is the overburden stress, P is the pore pressure, V is acoustic velocity, R is resistivity, Δt is interval transit time and σ' is the effective stress.
Subscripts: a is parameter at the “normal pressure”, b is parameter at the depth of interest, n is parameter at “normal pressure”, o is the observed parameter, mat is the
matrix, min is the minimum and max is the maximum.
X is value used estimate the PPG (Y-axis) in overlay plots α is a calibration parameters (usually taken to be 7.35)
A & B are local calibration parameters ri and lc are local calibration parameters
φo & η are calibration parameters (X is typically taken to be 2.19)

Table of PPP Methods
PPP Approach Method Type Name PP Indicator Expression(s)
3
⎛ Δt ⎞
1.2
⎛R ⎞
σ = σ n ⎜⎜ n
'
⎟⎟ σ = σ n ⎜⎜ o
'
⎟⎟
acoustic/resistivity/ ⎝ Δto ⎠ ⎝ Rn ⎠
Eaton (1975) 1 .2
conductivity/D exponent ⎛C ⎞ ⎛d ⎞
1.2
σ = σ n ⎜⎜ n
'
⎟⎟ σ ' = σ n ⎜⎜ xco ⎟⎟
⎝ Co ⎠ ⎝ d xcn ⎠
⎛ σ − Pm ⎞
log ⎜⎜ v ⎟⎟
Horizontal Weakley (1989) acoustic N = ⎝ σ v − Pn ⎠
⎛V ⎞
log ⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟
⎝ Vn ⎠
σ ' = σ n 10 − b (φ − φ n )
Effective Stress
1
Rasmus and Gray Stephens (1991) resistivity
⎛ 1 V ⎞m
φ − φ n = ⎜⎜ − c l ⎟⎟
⎝ R o R cl ⎠
U
⎛ σ ⎞
σ (b ) = σ max ⎜⎜ (a ) ⎟⎟
'
Bowers (1995) acoustic
Other ⎝ σ max ⎠
σ ' = A (1 − φ )
B
Holbrook (1987) resistivity
Symbols: σ is stress, σ' is the effective stress, P is the pore pressure, V is the lithology volume, R is resistivity, C is conductivity, dx is “drilling exponent”, Δt is interval transit time and
φ is total porosity.
Subscripts: a is parameter at the “normal pressure”, b is parameter at the depth of interest, n is the parameter at the “normal pressure”, o is the observed parameter, mat is matrix,
min is minimum, max is maximum and v is vertical.
This method calculates Eaton’s (1975) N exponent σmax=σ′max (max. vel.) & U is a local calibration factor (3.13 for GoM)
m and b are local calibration factors A & B are end-member parameters which vary based on lithology

Resistivity Measurements
Advantages Limitations
¾ Resistivity data is often acquired from ¾ Poorly defined normal trend in deep
surface down to total depth water environments
¾ Ability to use multiple trend-line and ¾ False indication of pressure due to pore water
effective stress pressure prediction methods salinity change, proximity to salt and closeness
to faults
¾ Temperature effects on measurement
(resistivity decreases with increasing
temperature)
¾ Resistivity response dependent on vertical
resolution, depth of investigation and borehole
rugosity

Acoustic Measurement
Advantages Limitations
¾ Low sensitivity to hole size, formation ¾ Not run from surface to total depth in
temperature and pore water salinity most wells
¾ Small effect of measurement around salt ¾ Lithology dependent, shale rich environments
with no hydrocarbon influence work best
¾ Ability to calibrate with seismic-based ¾ Variability in exponent in geologic areas
predictions
¾ Generally obtain good agreement with
measured pore pressure data (e.g., RCI data)
¾ DTS shear data tends to show improved
response in isolated pressured zones
¾ Ability to calculate bulk density and porosity
from which overburden and pore pressure is
derived

Trend Line-based PP Prediction
Line-based
Step 1: Pick shale points

Shale picks denoted
by red lines
Shale Point Guidelines
• Pick shales at least 10-30 feet thick
• Silty/limey shales should be avoided
• Avoid picks within 10 feet of a sand

Note: It is necessary to
• Shallow resistivity picks could be affected by the freshening of
select shale points because
pore water the PPP is valid only in
the shale sections.
• Temperature correct resistivities, especially at shallow depths
• Shales around salts may be too low of values
• Geologic age boundaries and unconformities may shift trends
• Hydrocarbon zones can affect the resistivity and/or acoustic

readings

Trend Line-based PP Prediction
Line-based
Step 2: Placement of
Normal Trend Line (NTL)
The trend line is defined by two points Inconsistent placement and
along the normal compaction trend, slope of the NTL leads to
errors in the predicted pore
prior to entering the top of overpressure. pressure!
NTL Slope is affected by:

• Depositional rate
• Age of the sediments
• Thickness
• Silt / lime content
Potential overpressure zone

NTL Adjustments
Shifting of the NTL is
sometimes required to
calibrate the pore pressure
model when non-
compaction related pressure
mechanisms such as the
presence of salt, faulting,
unconformities or dipping
beds are encountered.
The shift should retain
the same NTL slope!
NOTE: If a NTL shift is needed, verify

from the company geologist/
geophysicist that tectonic-related
mechanisms are present to support the
shift.

Resistivity PP Prediction-example
Prediction-example
z Due to the close proximity

of salt, a shift of the
normal trend line (NTL)
was needed.
z In real-time, the actual
degree of NTL shift
needed is difficult without
some sort of calibration or
using some other data
source such as acoustic
data or measured
pressure (such as
TesTrak).
z Confidence in analysis is
low if unable to compare
with other types of
analysis in this particular
geologic environment
(salt).

Acoustic PP Prediction
Prediction-- example
z In this case, no acoustic

NTL shift was need to
account for salinity
changes, which was
required by resistivity.
z Good agreement with
wireline pressure tests.
z In areas of possible salinity
water changes (around
salt), using the acoustic
improves the accuracy of
the pore pressure &
fracture gradient (PPFG)
analysis.
z Reduced risk and increased
safety with an accurate
PPFG analysis

PP Adjustments
z Resistivity is affected by salinity

changes much greater than acoustic.
This gives an unrealistic indication of
pore pressure.
z Adjustments to the RES NTL must be
made to account for this effect,
degree of shift must be calibrated
with another PP source.
z No NTL adjustments for DTC,
resulting in less error in PP.

Centroid Effects
After Eigill Nysaether Trindheim 2006

Centroid Effects – lateral transfer
Pressure
Large pressure in the

reservoir that the Shale
Starting of Overpressure Zone

Depth
Increase
Pressure
Line of Tilt
Res
Overpressure erv
oir
Hydrostatic Lithostatic
After R. Swarbrick CSEG 2002

Centroid Effects –
fracturing potential
The equivalent mud
weight increases toward
the crest while decreases
in the bounding shale
which therefore also has
a corresponding decrease
in hydraulic fracture
pressure. A well drilled
directly at the structural
crest of a trap can lose
returns into the seal with
the mud pumps on and
have flow from the
reservoir with the pumps
After Heppard and Traugott
off.

Summarizing Pore Pressure
¾ Pore pressure prediction requires a complete formation evaluation

analysis from “surface to total depth” to provide an accurate pressure
prediction.
¾ Log response must be carefully analyzed for geological, structural,

borehole and formation effects on measurements.
¾ Ability to use multiple effective stress pressure prediction methods is

required to accurately predict PP.
¾ The use of multiple trend-lines may be necessary in geologically complex

regions
¾ Seismic calibration of the acoustic data can enhance pre-drill models for
real-time prediction.
¾ Real-time resistivity and acoustic can be used to continuously update the

PP model as well as to provide “ahead of the bit” predictions.

Wellbore Stability Basics

Outline
I. Stress distribution around a circular borehole

II. Failure modes and failure criteria
III. Mud weight window
IV. Stress polygon
V. Borehole strengthening

Stress Concentration
σh
σH σH
σh
When a well is drilled in a formation, stressed solid materials is
removed and replaced with a fluid under pressure. Since the
well fluid pressure normally does not match exactly the stress
which the removed solid exerted, there will be an alteration in
the stress state of the formation around the well.
The Need for a 3D Stress Analysis
Around A Borehole
Multilateral Configurations
Dual Stacked Trilateral Fork
Herringbone Backbone and Rib Radial

Stresses Around A Borehole
Coordinate Systems Zs
Zb (Anisotropic Materials)
Z
Z Yb
Zr
Yr
Ys Z
βs Xs βb Xb Xr
βr
Y Y Y
αs αb αr
X X X
far-field stress borehole rock property
Stress Transformation Z (down) zb (borehole axis-down)

zb (borehole down) Deeper Depth
Z (down) σbzz
τbyz
σ a
σzz
τbxz yb
σZZ σbzz θ
σθθ σrr
τbyz xb (bottom of hole)

τbyz
xb (hole bottom) τbxz σbyy
τZY τbxz
τbxy
τbxy
τbyz
τZX τbxy
τbxz σbxx
σYY σbyy τbxy Shallower Depth

τYX σbxx
τXZ Y (East) Y (East)
τYZ
τXY yb
σXX (Stress
X (North)
Components) X (North) (Local Coordinate) (Cylindrical Coordinate)
Stresses Around the Borehole
Due
Dueto tothe
thecylindrical
cylindricalshape
shapeofofthe
thestructure,
structure,aacylindrical
cylindricalcoordinate
coordinatesystem system
is often selected as the working coordinate system. The total stress-field
is often selected as the working coordinate system. The total stress-field
around
aroundaawellbore
wellboreofofarbitrary
arbitraryorientation
orientationis
isthus
thusdefined
definedbybyσσrrrr’,’,σσθθθθ’,’,σσzzzz’,’,ττrθrθ, ,
ττrz, ,and
andττθz ::
rz θz
(σbxx + σbyy ) ⎛ a 2 ⎞ (σbxx − σbyy ) ⎛ a2 a4 ⎞ ⎛ a2 a4 ⎞ a2
σ rr = ⎜ 1 − 2 ÷+ ⎜ 1 − 4 2 + 3 4 ÷ cos 2θ + τbxy ⎜ 1 − 4 2 + 3 4 ÷ sin 2θ + Pmud 2
2 ⎝ r ⎠ 2 ⎝ r r ⎠ ⎝ r r ⎠ r
(σbxx + σbyy ) ⎛ a 2 ⎞ (σbxx − σbyy ) ⎛ a4 ⎞ ⎛ a4 ⎞ a2
σθθ = ⎜1 + 2 ÷ − ⎜1 + 3 4 ÷ cos 2θ − τbxy ⎜ 1 + 3 4 ÷ sin 2θ 1− Pmud 2
2 ⎝ r ⎠ 2 ⎝ r ⎠ ⎝ r ⎠ r
a2 a2 z’
σ zz = σbzz − 2υ (σbxx − σbyy ) 2 cos 2θ − 4υτbxy 2 sin 2θ
r r y’
⎡ (σbxx − σ by ) ⎤⎛ a2 a4 ⎞
τ rθ = ⎢ y sin 2θ + τbxy cos 2θ ⎥⎜ 1 + 2 2 − 3 4 ÷ O
⎣ 2 ⎦⎝ r r ⎠ β
’
x’
⎛ a2 ⎞
[
τrz = τbyz sinθ + τbxz cosθ ⎜ 1 − 2 ÷
⎝ r ⎠ ] α
2
⎛ a ⎞
[ ]
2
τθz = − τbxy sinθ + τbyz cosθ ⎜1 + ÷

⎝ r2 ⎠
3
At
Atthe
theborehole
boreholewall,
wall,the
theeffective
effectivestress
stresscomponents:
components:
η = Biot' s constant
σ' = P − ηP
rr mud pore
σ ' = (σ +σ ) − 2(σ −σ ) cos 2θ − 4τ sin 2θ − P − ηP
θθ bxx byy bxx byy bxy mud pore
σ' = σ − 2υ (σ −σ ) cos 2θ − 4υτ sin 2θ − ηP
1
zz bzz bxx byy bxy pore
τ =0
rθ z’
τ =0 y’
rz
τ = 2( −τ sinθ + τ cosθ ) O
θz bxz byz ’
β
x’
The effective Principal Stresses at the borehole wall are: 2
α
σ 1' , 2 =
σ θθ' + σ zz'
±
(σ '
θθ − σ zz' )
2
+ 4τ θ2z σ ' = Pmud − ηPpore

3
2 4 3

σh
For the special case of a vertical well and in the Pw = Pmud , Pp = Ppore
principal stress directions (θ1, θ2): σv
r
θ2
σ '
=σ '
and if σ bxx = σ H , σ byy = σ h
θ
1, 3 θθ θ1 σH
z z’
σ rr = pw
σ θθ = σ H ( 1 − 2 Cos 2θ ) + σ h (1 + 2 Cos 2θ ) − pw
σ zz = 0
τ rθ = τ rz = τ θ z = 0
θ
The maximum tangential stress (σ1) occurs at
θ = 90° & 270°→ cos (2θ) = -1 r y’
x’ σh
The minimum tangential stress (σ3) occurs at θ σH
= 0° and 180°→ cos (2θ) = 1
IfIfmax
maxhoop
hoopstress
stressisistoo
toohigh
high(compression),
(compression),
σ '
1 = 3σ H − σ h − pw − Pp the rock may fail in shear !!!
the rock may fail in shear !!!
σ ' = 3σ h − σ H − pw − Pp IfIfmin
minhoop
hoopstress
stressisistoo
toolow
low(tension),
3
(tension),
the rock may fail in tension !!!
the rock may fail in tension !!!
For the special case of a horizontal well drilled parallel to the maximum
horizontal stress …
σv
If σv > σh
σv
σ ' = 3σ v − σ h − pw − Pp ( Along σ h )
1
σh
z’ σ ' = 3σ h − σ v − pw − Pp ( Along σ v )
3
If σh > σv
y’
σh σ ' = 3σ h − σ v − pw − Pp ( Along σ v )
1
x’
σ ' = 3σ v − σ h − pw − Pp ( Along σ h )
3
σH

For the special case of a horizontal well drilled parallel to the minimum
horizontal stress …
σv
If σv > σH
σv σ ' = 3σ v − σ H − pw − Pp ( Along σ H )
1
σH
σ ' = 3σ H − σ v − pw − Pp ( Along σ v )
3
z’
If σH > σv
σ ' = 3σ H − σ v − pw − Pp ( Along σ v )
1
σ ' = 3σ v − σ H − pw − Pp ( Along σ H )
3
x’
σH
y’ σh

σh
Numerical Example
A
σh = 3500 psi Pw θ
σH = 5000 psi B σH
Pw = Pp = 3000 psi
At A: σ’θ = 3(5000) – (3500) – 3000 – 3000 = 5500 psi (+)
At B: σ’θ = 3(3500) – (5000) – 3000 – 3000 = -500 psi (-)

At A: σ’θ = 5500 psi (compressive) – breakout, shear failure
At B: σ’θ = -500 psi (tensile) – hydraulic fracturing

Outline

IV. Stress polygon

Typical Borehole Failure Modes
For a vertical well …

If the mud weight becomes
excessive, it may induce
σH hydraulic fracturing (tensile
failure) of the rock!
tensile failure
Pw
Note: These are the If the mud weight is too low,
most common lack of wellbore support could
types of wellbore active induce rock compressive
failure! (active shear) failure!
shear
σh
failure

Other Borehole Failure Modes
For a vertical well … If the mud weight becomes

excessive, passive shear
failure may occur! In most
cases, passive shear failure is
σH preceeded by hydraulic
fracturing (tensile failure)!
passive shear
failure
Note: The location Pw

of spalling may
occur anywhere If the mud weight is
insufficient (resulting in
along the wellbore! underbalanced situation) and
rock permeability is low, radial
σh radial tensile failure tensile failure (i.e., spalling or
(σrr = pw – pp ≤ To) sloughing) may occur!

Evidence of Borehole Failure
resistivity acoustic
image image
STAR Image - Breakout

Borehole Breakout direction
180º corresponds to
the orientation
What is the maximum hole of σh in a
deviation that we can use vertical well
breakout to deduce the
stress orientation with
some degree of certainty?

Shear/Compressive Failure Modes
Breakout (onion peeled failure) – Type A
σ θ > σ z > σr
Toric failure – Type B σHmax
σ z > σ θ > σr σHmin

Helical shear failure – Type C
σ z > σ r > σθ
σθ = hoop stress
σz = axial stress
σr = radial stress
Wide breakout – Shallow High angle Narrow

commonly called knockout – the enchelon – breakout –
breakout circumferential makes high- the annular
coverage is angle fractures coverage is
small and that cover up to typically
could be a quarter of the less than 300
caused with a borehole
vertical fracture circumference
σθ > σ z > σ r σ z > σθ > σ r σ z > σ r > σθ σ r > σ z > σθ

Rezmer-Cooper, Bratton and Krabbe (2000) – SPE 59225

Low angle Deep knockout –

enchelon occurs in the
vertical plane, but
is centered at the
azimuth of the
maximu horizontal
stress
σθ > σ r > σ z σ r > σθ > σ z

Failure Modes – Breakout
- INSUFFICIENT wellbore pressure (lack of support)

- big difference between the in-situ stresses
- low formation strength
Tangential stress acting at
the borehole wall
σσθθ(max) = 3σ – σ – P – P
(max) = 3σHH – σhh – Pww – PPP
If σH >> σh , the resultant tangential stress
will be very high, which can potentially de-
stabilize the borehole.
Comparison of tangential
σσθθ(max) == UCS
UCS +
+ (P
(Pw –– αP
αPp)) tan
tan
22(45°+φ/2)
(45°+φ/2) stress (load) and rock strength
(max) w p Æ M-C failure criterion
From the equations, we can see that raising the mud weight has two beneficial effects:
reduce the tangential stress

increase the effective strength.
These effects (in addition to controlling wellbore trajectory) effectively maintain

borehole stability.
Azimuthal Maximum Tangential Stress Distribution
Compared with Rock Compressive Strength
σHmax=8000 psi @NS
Compressive 180 σhmin=6500 psi @EW
strength -155
-160
-165-170
-175 175 170
165
160
155
σv=10000 psi @ Vert
-150
-145 12000
150
145 Pp = 4600 psi, UCS=8500 psi
-140 140 Mud Weight = 11.0 ppg
-135 135
-130 9000 130
-125 125 Borehole Deviation = 0, Azimuth = 0
-120 120
-115 6000 115
-110 110
-105 105
3000
-100 100 Strength
-95 95 drill//sH,Max_Tan Stress
-90 0 90
-85 85
10000
-80 80
-75 75
N
-70 70
-65 65 6500
-60 Compressive 60
stress
-55 55
00
-50
-45 45
50
80
-40 40
-35 35
-30 30
-25 25
-20 20
-15 -10 10 15
-5 5
0
Borehole Low-Side

Compressive σHmax=8000 psi @NS
strength -165-170
-175
180
175 170
165
σhmin=6500 psi @EW
-155
-160 160
155 σv=10000 psi @ Vert
-150 150
-145 12000 145 Pp = 4600 psi, UCS=8500 psi
-140 140
-130 9000 130
-120 120
-115 6000 115
-110 110
-105 105
3000
-100 100 Strength
-90 0 90
-85 85
10000
-80 80
-75 75 N
-70 70
-65 65
6500
-60 Compressive 60
stress
-55 55
-50 50 00
-45 45 80
-40 40
-35 35
-30 30
-25 25
-20 20
-15 -10 10 15
-5 5
0
Borehole Low-Side

σHmax=8000 psi @NS
Compressive -175
180
175 170 σhmin=6500 psi @EW
-165-170
strength
165
-155
-160 160
155 σv=10000 psi @ Vert
-150 150
-145 12000 145 Pp = 4600 psi, UCS=8500 psi
-140 140
-130 9000 130
-120 120
-115 6000 115
-110 110
-105 105
3000
-100 100 Strength
-90 0 90
-85 85
10000
-80 80
N
-75 75
-70 70
-65 65 6500
-60 Compressive 60
-55 55
-50 stress 50
80
00
-45 45
-40 40
-35 35
-30 30
-25 25
-20 20
-15 -10 10 15
-5 5
0
Borehole Low-Side

Major breakouts
Problems:
Ê high volume of solids due to rock spalling/caving
Ê poor hole cleaning (more critical in inclined wells)
Ê stuck pipe
Ê high torque and drag
Remedies:
Ê increase wellbore fluid density
Ê increase the sealing capacity of drilling fluid
Ê minimize surge and swab pressure

Small breakouts
Problems:
minor breakout is a restricted zone of shear failure
wellbore is stabilized without experiencing borehole
instability related problems
the width and direction of breakouts are used for
in-situ stress characterization
Remedy:
use controlled breakout concept to enhance drilling
and completion efficiency

Failure Modes – Controlled
Breakout
70° “allowed”
breakout!
180
no breakout!
180 -175 175 170
-175 175 170 -165-170 8000 165
-165-170 8000 165 -160 160
-160 160 -155 155
-155 155 -150 150
-150 150 7000
7000 -145 145
-145 145
-140 140 -140 140
6000 -135 6000 135
-135 135
-130 130 -130 130
5000 5000
-125 125 -125 125
-120 120 -120 4000 120
4000
-115 115 -115 115
3000 -110 3000 110
-110 110
-105 2000 105 -105 2000 105
-100 100 -100 100
1000 1000
-95 95 -95 95
-90 0 90 -90 0 90
-85 85 -85 85
-80 80 -80 80
-75 75 -75 75
-70 70 -70 70
-65 MW = 12 ppg 65 -65
MW = 11 ppg 65
-60 60 -60 60
-55 55 -55 55
-50 50 -50 50
-45 45 -45 45
-40 40 -40 40
-35 35
-30 30 Confined Strength -35 35
-25 25 -30 30
-20
-15 -10
20 Max Tang Stress -25 25
10 15 -20
-15 -10
20
-5 5
-5 5 10 15
0
0
Lower MW can be used if breakout is allowed to form!

NOTE: Due to wellbore cleaning issues, the max. allowable breakout size in deviated boreholes is less than in vertical ones !!!
Shear Failure Criteria
Mohr-Coulomb σ1 = UCS + σ3 tan 2 ( π4 + φ2 )
2 3 sin φ
Drucker Prager A = 2 3 cos φ
3 − sin φ B=
J 2 = A × J1ef + B 3 − sin φ
J2 =
1
6
[
(σ rr − σθθ )2 + (σθθ − σ zz )2 + (σ zz − σ rr )2 ] σ rr + σθθ + σ zz
J1ef = − p( r , t )
+ σ 2rθ + σ θ2z + σ 2rz 3
'' 3
Modified Lade I 1
''
= 27 + η
I3
I ' '1 = (σ 1 + S1 − p0 ) + (σ 2 + S1 − p0 ) + (σ 3 + S1 − p0 )
I 3 = (σ 1 + S1 − p0 ) ⋅ (σ 2 + S1 − p0 ) ⋅ (σ 3 + S1 − p0 )
p0 : pore pressure
S o: Mohr − Coulomb cohesion S1 =
S0
, η = 4 tan 2 φ (9 − 7 sin φ )(1 − sin φ )
tan φ
Shear Failure Criteria
Intermediate principle stress has no
Mohr - Coulomb
influence on rock strength
Overestimate the effect of intermediate
Drucker - Prager
principle stress on rock strength
Initial strengthening from increasing Drucker - Prager
Major Stress, σ1 (psi)

σ2, then decrease in strength.
Less conservative than Mohr-

coulomb.
Modified Lade
More conservative than Druckr-

Prager (predicts greater Mohr-Coulomb
strengthening effect from σ2).
Intermediate Stress, σ2 (psi)

Effect of Failure Criteria on
Critical Mud Weights (CMW)
13
CMW increases with increasing

12
Mohr - Coulomb Modified Lade of inclination due to in-situ
Critical Mud Weight (ppg)
11 stress anisotropy
10
9
M-C predicts highest CMW, D-
Drucker - Prager P lowest CMW, and M-L is in
8
the middle at the same
7 inclination.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Well Inclination (degrees)
Ewy - SPE 47251

Tensile Failure Modes
Cylindrical – Horizontal Vertical

concentric with
the borehole,
and is not
visible on a
wellbore image
σ r' < 0 σ 3' < −to σ 3' < −to

Pw − Pp < −to
Failure Modes - Tension
• Tensile fracture (vertical)
- triggered by excessive wellbore pressure

- big issue when having a big difference
between the in-situ stresses acting normal to
the borehole axis
- fracture traces are diametrically opposed
- fractures may extend long distances along
the wellbore
σσ’’θθmin = 3σ – σ – P – P
min = 3σhh – σHH – Pww – PPP

Failure Modes – Tension … ((ctd.)
ctd.)
Petal fractures: hydraulically-induced fractures that form
ahead of the bit. Normally found in relatively stiff
formations; probably caused by a combination of high
mud weight and high weight-on-bit.
Centerline fractures: Hydraulically-induced features that

connect previously formed petal fractures
Hydraulic fractures: Used as a reservoir-stimulation and

management method. Could be planned (for stimulation
purposes) or accidental (i.e. drilling-induced fractures).

Drilling Induced
Fractures
(hydraulically induced)

CORE PHOTOGRAPH IMAGE LOG
Petal
Fracture
Petal
Centerline
fracture
Breakout 180°
Failure Modes – Tension … ((ctd.)
ctd.)
Drilling Induced Fractures
Problems:
Ê lost circulation - sudden loss of drilling fluid
Ê similar fluid loss gradient across the field
Ê losses occur when breakdown pressure > fracture
gradient (fracture propagation pressure)
Remedies:
Ê decrease wellbore fluid gradient
Ê increase the sealing capacity of drilling fluid

Outline

IV. Stress polygon

Mud Weight Window - Definition of
Terms
) Fracture initiation pressure is the wellbore pressure

above which the initiation of hydraulically-induced
fractures will take place.
) Breakdown pressure is the wellbore pressure at
which the formation of major hydraulically-induced
fractures is expected to take place.
) Fracture gradient is the wellbore pressure gradient
above which the propagation of pre-existing
fractures will take place.
) Minimum mud weight @ breakout size is the mud
weight below which the formation of breakouts of
specific size (width in degrees) will take place.

For Clarification Purposes …
Pressure
Pbreakdown
Preopening T0
Ppropagation
Frac.Grad. = σ3
time
1st PRESSURE 2nd PRESSURE
CYCLE CYCLE
Mud Weight Window
IDEAL
SHEAR FAILURE MW TENSILE FAILURE
REAL LIFE MW
Excessive BO Minor BO In-gage hole Minor Losses Excessive Losses
σ3
Pw Pw Pw Pw Pw
σ2
Low Mud Weight Scale High

Pore σ3 (magnitude)
Pressure
Mud Weight Window … (ctd.)
IDEAL
REAL LIFE MW
Æ Mud weight range defined by the Excessive BO Minor BO In-gage hole Minor Losses Excessive Losses
σ3
breakout limit (lower bound) and the Pw Pw Pw Pw Pw

σ2
fracture propagation limit (upper Low Mud Weight Scale High
Pore σ3 (magnitude)
Pressure
bound).
ÆThe breakout limit is the minimum mud weight that could be

used without exceeding the maximum allowable breakout size.
Also defined by the Pp if the formation is sufficiently strong
Æ The fracture propagation limit or fracture gradient is equal to the

magnitude of the closure stress (minimum principal stress, σ3)

Mud Weight Window … (ctd.)
TUNE - Well 30/9-11-H
EMW (sg)
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3
2,000
Balder FM
2,200
ROGALAND
GRP
Fracture gradient, i.e. σ3
2,400
2,600 Mud window

SHETLAND
GRP
2,800
3,000
3,200
Viking
Depth, MD (m)
3,400
Breakdown
3,600
Pore pressure Pressure

3,800
BRENT
4,000
4,200
MW for allowing 0, 30
4,400
and 60 degree
4,600 breakouts
4,800
5,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Pp FG OBG
MW (Breakout =0 deg) MW (Breakout =30 deg) MW (Breakout =60 deg)
MW (Breakout =90 deg) Breakdown Inclination (deg)

Mud Weight Window
The curves of pore pressure and fracture gradient are very important as
they also define the casing setting depths:
Equivalent mud density (lb/gal)
Equivalent mud density (lb/gal)
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
0
2,000
2,000 Csg. setting depth
4,000
4,000
6,000
6,000
(Data from Bourgoyne et

Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
8,000
al., 1991) 8,000
10,000
10,000
Csg. setting depth
12,000
12,000
Pp
FGPp
14,000 PpFG
+ 0.5
14,000 FGPp- 0.5
+ 0.5
FG - 0.5
Target
16,000
16,000

Mud Weight Contour Plot
N
45
E
45
5, 45
4
N
90
E
90, 90
90
N N
0
270
0 45 90 E
E
180
0, 0

Outline

IV. Stress polygon

STAR Image - Drilling Induced Fracture (tensile feature) &

Breakout (shear failure)
Breakout
Fracture

Stress Polygon
Maximum Horizontal Stress (σH)
(μ )
RF 2
σh=σH
f (μ) = 2
+1 + μ
SS
σ1 − pp
= f (μ )
σ 3 − pp
NF
σv Mohr’s Diagram
Minimum Horizontal Stress (σh)
ffi cient
oe
Stress Polygon n al C
Shear Stress (τ) Fr ictio
Bounding of horizontal stresses μ=
through the Frictional Theory.
2
χ = tan φ
⎡ 2 ⎤
( )
1
φ = angle of internal friction Normal Stress (σ)
σ 1 = Co + σ 3 ⎢ χ + 1 2 + χ ⎥
⎣ ⎦ Co = uniaxial compressive strength

Stress Polygon
Breakdown line: (Tensile failure)

σ H = 3σ h − Po − Pb + To
σ
Breakout σ
V >line: H , max >
(Compressible σ
hfailure)
, min
⎡ C f + Pw + αPo ⎤ σ h [1 + 2 cos(2ϕ )]
σH = ⎢ −
Normal⎥Faulted
⎣ 1 − 2 cos (2ϕ ) ⎦ [1 − 2 cos(2ϕ )]
In-situ stress regime

Stress Polygon
σ H ,max > σ V > σ h ,min

Strike-Slip Faulted

Stress Polygon
σ H ,max > σ h,min > σ V
Reverse or inverse

Coefficient of Friction
Byerlee (1978)

Stress Polygon
Induced fractures
Horizontal Stress Estimation
(extensional failure) σ H = 3σ h − Po − Pb + To
Breakout (Shear failure)

⎡ C f + Pw + αPo ⎤ σ h [1 + 2 cos(2ϕ )]
σH = ⎢ ⎥−
( ) [1 − 2 cos(2ϕ )]
Maximum horizontal Stress (σH)
RI 1 − 2 cos 2ϕ
⎣ ⎦
RF
RT
By superposition of:
σh=σH
RN
SS Frictional theory
Extensional failure
NF Shear failure
Knowledge of σh Î LOT, XLOT
σv
Minimum Horizontal Stress (σh)

Stress Polygon
Bounding the horizontal stresses

by using stress polygon and failure
mechanism.
North Sea Case:
Breakout
Induced Fractures
The strength (UCS) of this

zone is determined by LMP.

Stress Polygon – Constraining
the Horizontal Stresses
σ
∇σ ≅ 0 . 82 ⇒ H
= 1 . 17
σ
Pp=0.74 psi/ft h
h
Pmud=1.83 sg
UCS= 3790 Psi
θb=32°
3790 psi
UC S=

Stress Polygon – Horizontal
Stress Calibration DIF
DIF and breakout
No stress features
SPE 105808
Outline

IV. Stress polygon

Implications on a GoM Drilling
Program
Typical GoM Casing Profile Including mud heating
frac gradient “New” frac gradient is

expanded due to
heating. Therefore,
the safe MW window
is increased!
“old” frac
gradient
$ $
pore pressure
pore pressure
driller
Requires 5 casing seats to reach TD Requires only 4 casing seats to reach TD

Borehole Strengthening
) Controlled Breakout
) Fracture Linking and Plugging
) Internal Mud Cake
) Temperature

Borehole Breakout –
Lab Observation

Borehole Strengthening –
Breakout
3
• Experiments have been
conducted to examine
Normalized Strength, σ H/Co
2.5
“excavation strength” of
2
circular and “broken out”
geometry under same stress
1.5
1 Small Blk
conditions - Breakout geometry
0.5
Large Blk
has up to 40% higher strength
0
Breakout
than a circular geometry.
Circular
Excavation Geometry
Table 1. Strength of Breakout and Circular Excavations (Reference 28)
σH Co σH K max K max
Shape (MPa) (MPa) Co σH Co
Small Blocks (27.9cm × 27.9cm × 27.9cm)
BK 1 53.79 19.24 2.80 >6 16.80
BK 2 53.10 19.24 2.76 >6 16.56
BKavg 53.45 19.24 2.78 >6 16.68
CR 38.97 19.24 2.03 2.5 5.06
Large Blocks (100cm × 100cm × 105cm)
BK 37.24 19.24 1.94 >6 11.61
CR 27.93 19.24 1.45 2.5 3.63
σH - Maximum applied far field stress at on set of excavation failure.

Co - Unconfined compressive strength of tested material.
Kmax - Maximum stress concentration on each excavation shape.
BK - abbreviation for breakout
CR – abbreviation for circular geometry

Stress Variations with Breakout
x a
P O IN T a
S E C T IO N I 4 8 .3
2 0 .7 σ1
x b
S E C T IO N II
x c -6 .9
S E C T IO N III σ3
x d
e -3 4 .5
x
1 5 10
(b )
(a )
P O IN T c
4 8 .3 σ1 P O IN T b 4 8 .3
σ1
x
x
2 0 .7 2 0 .7
x
σ3
σ3
-6 .9 -6 .9
STAGE A STAGE B
-3 4 .5 -3 4 .5
1 5 10 1 5 10
(c ) (d )
σ1
7 5 .8
σ1
STAGE A STAG E B
4 8 .3 x 7 5 .8
x x
σ3 STAGE A
2 0 .7 STAGE B 4 8 .3
x
-6 .9 2 0 .7 σ3 x
P O IN T d x
P O IN T e
-6 .9
-3 4 .5
1 5 10 1 5 10
(e ) (f)

Controlled Breakout - Summary
Experimental and numerical studies have shown that

boreholes with breakout geometry are more stable than
circular boreholes, especially in high stress environments.
Utilizing breakout concept helps to increase the choice
of drilling directions in highly inclined boreholes, decrease
mud weights and, hence, reduce formation damage and
lost circulation.
May need to increase the drilling fluid lifting capacity for
effective hole cleaning.

Controlled Breakout - Application
Mud
MudWeight,
Weight,PPG
PPG
8.5 99 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13
SPE 47282 – Integrated

8.5 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13
1000
1000
Borehole Stability Analysis
1100
1100
– Against Tradition
Frac-Propagation
Frac-Propagation
1200
1200
SPE 64620 – Technology
1300
1300
Applied to Extend the
deg.
Breakout=60deg.
Drilling Reach of a Platform
1400
1400
Breakout=60
Workover Rig
1500
meter
1500
Sea),meter
deg.
CADE 2003-005 – Wellbore
Breakout=0deg.
(SubSea),
1600
1600
Breakout=0
Stability (Geomechanics) Depth(Sub
VerticalDepth
Modeling and Drilling 1700

1700
Deviation
BoreholeDeviation
TrueVertical
Optimization Practices
1800
1800
Reduce Drilling Cost –

True
Borehole
Terra Nova Project
1900
1900
2000
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Borehole
BoreholeDeviation
Deviationfrom
fromVertical,
Vertical,degree
degree

Borehole Strengthening - Fracture
) Fracture Link-up Pressure

• According to Weng [SPE
26597] and Ito et al. [SPE
57007], if multiple fractures are
induced, there is a critical
pressure, Plink, above which
the fractures will link up.
• If the mud pressure is less
than Plink, no serious mud loss
will occur.

) Fracture Link-up Pressure

• If σ norm f σ para → Pw = σ norm ( Pw )
• If σ para f σ norm
⎡ ⎧ para
σ − σ norm ⎫
−0.72
⎤
ω f = ω crit −1
= sin ⎢0.57⎨ ⎬ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎩ Pw − σ norm ⎭ ⎥⎦ σpara
σnorm
ωf=fracture inclination angle.
Substitute ωf for ωcrit and solve
for Pw

) Fracture Propagating Pressure
• According to Ito et al. [SPE 57007], after fractures
linked up and if the mud pressure is not sufficient to
propagate the fracture, no serious mud loss will occur.
• For plugged penny shape fracture:
2
p pore ⎛c ⎞
4.0
1- 1−⎜ 1 ⎟ 3.5
Ppore/Sminh=0.0 Ppore/Sminh=0.2
p grow σ minh ⎝c⎠ Ppore/Sminh=0.4 Ppore/Sminh=0.6
= 3.0 Ppore/Sminh=0.8 Ppore/Sminh=1.0

σ minh 2
P g ro w /σ m in h
2.5
⎛c ⎞
1− 1−⎜ 1 ⎟ 2.0
⎝c⎠ 1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
c1
c1 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
c
c1/c

) Fracture Propagating Pressure
According to Fuh et al. [SPE 24599] and Morita et al.
[SPE 20409]:
• Fluid leaks off into formation during fracture
propagation and mud is concentrated during leak-off.
• Dehydrated mud bridges near fracture tip, increases
the fracture propagation pressure.

Wellbore “Strengthening” – Stress
Cage
Imagine the case of a fractured block that is kept
loaded between two fixed (i.e. zero displacement)
plates Æ constant stress across the rock (along
red dotted lines)
Now imagine that the fracture is forced (and kept) open Æ The compressive
stress magnitude is increased near the edge of the rock where the fracture is.
The wider the fracture, the more difficult it becomes to further open the crack
In a well, the tangential stress around the

borehole will increase; therefore, increasing the
closure stress (i.e. the effective fracture
gradient) of the formation (Fuh et al., 1992;
Alberty and McLean, 2004; Dupriest, 2005)
Zone of increased closure stress

(actual shape may differ)

Stress Cage – Solution Concept
After Mark Alberty (2005)

Wellbore “Strengthening” –
Stress Cage … (ctd.)
Ê Wellbore initially stable, no PW

fractures
σC
Ê Fracture is created; as fluid
enters the crack, bridging
Pf
particles and mud cake block the PW
fracture entrance (PW > Pf > σC)
Ê After blocking has occurred, σC

the fluid within the fracture is
leaked off; thus, allowing the PW
fracture to close
(PW > Pf ~ σC2) Æ As a final
result, the effective closure σC2 σC2
pressure acting on the rock is
increased!!! (σC < σC2)
Stress Cage … (ctd.)
Ê In low permeability rocks, the blocking

“bridge” needs to be completely
impermeable. Low leak-off WILL NOT PW
reduce the fluid pressure within the
fracture; thus, creating the conditions for
further fracture extension (VERY
UNSUCCESSFUL)
Ê In permeable rocks (k > 1 md), even a

partially permeable “bridge” may
effectively arrest fracture growth. Leak-off PW
will dissipate any fluid pressure increment
in the fracture, reducing the possibility of
experiencing additional fracture extension
(EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL)

Wellbore “Strengthening” – Stress
cage … (ctd.)
Design Procedure (Alberty and McLean, 2004)
Determine the fracture gradient increment goal

Based on this goal, and using the rock mechanical properties and
in-situ stress, calculate the fracture aperture needed at the
borehole (normally a finite elements model is used for this
purpose)
Determine particle size distribution and concentration of the
solids used for wellbore strengthening. Solids such as calcium
carbonate (stress support) and graphite (hydraulic seal) are
commonly used.

Stress cage … (ctd.)
Highlights:
8 Very limited success in low permeability rocks (e.g. shales) Æ

may be due to time dependent, to early response to loading
(Wilson, 2005), and also to low leak-off rates.
8 Extremely successful in permeable (k > 1 md), soft formations
8 Failure to obtain good results in tectonic environments (e.g.
strike-slip, inverse)
9 Proven technology in non-tectonic environments (when applied
to permeable rocks)
9 Easy design and relatively standard job application

Internal mud cake – Physical
Model
1 2
σθ = σθ + σθ
σ r2 = Pw
σ θ2 =
Po R22 − Pw R12
+
(Po − Pw )R22
R22 − R12 (R 2
2 − R12 )

Internal mud cake – Deformable
Solid
DS is composed deformable
colloidal particles that bridges at
the borehole interface of low-
permeability sandstone formations
Successful bridging requires
proper characterizations of grain
and pore throat sizes
Under high differential pressure, DS
is forced to penetrate into the face
of the sand
Depth
This forced ”packing” together with
the deformable characteristics of
the sealant provides a better
internal mudcake sealing
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Sand Particle Size microns

Internal Mud Cake – Effect of
Stiffness Ratio
30000
Tangential stress (psi) 25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25
E1/E2

Internal Mud Cake
Altering the mechanical

characteristics of the near
wellbore region.
Developing high tangential
stresses in the near wellbore
region by particulate plugging
and bridging.
Fracture-resistance
enhancement is a function of
stiffness contras and pressure Rw
differential. Ri
Successes in low-perm sands in

South Texas: SPE 92266, SPE Pmud
103816, Petrotech 1002. Ppore

Breakdown Pressure Models
Idealized near wellbore pore pressure profiles for different
geomechanics models (comparison of pressure profile and
breakdown pressures, Pbd) Æ from Benaissa et al. (2005)
pwb
pwb
Permeable
wall, no cake Pbd1 Impermeable
wall, external
Pbd2
cake
pp pp
rw r rw r
pwb Mud No
losses losses
Impermeable
wall, internal
Pbd3
cake Pbd1 <Pbd2 <Pbd3
pp
r w ri r

Wellbore “Strengthening” – Field
Case (South Texas)
From Benaissa et al. (2005)
Pre s s ure /Stre s s Gradie nt (ppg) Pressure/Stress Gradient (ppg)

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
6,000 6,000
7,000
6,500
8,000
S
7,000
9,000
S E
S
7,500
LO
10,000
TVD (ft)
TVD (ft)
8,000
NO
11,000
8,500
12,000
9,000
13,000
14,000 9,500
PP PP
15,000 MW 10,000
MW
sigmh
Breakdow n Pres.-Permeable Wall Breakdown Pres.-Permeable Wall
Breakdow n Pres.-Impermeable Wall Breakdown Pres.-Impermeable Wall
Breakdow n Pres.-Impermeable Internal Cake
Breakdown Pres.-Impermeable Internal Cake

Effect of Temperature
Temp Dependant LOT Tests
2900
2700
Pressure (psi)
2500
2300
2100
1900
1700
1500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Pump Strokes
SPE 87217 92 F 133 F 153 F
Special Topics in
Wellbore Stability
Outline
ÎDrilling through laminated formation

z Drilling in and near salt bodies
z Drilling through faults
z Drilling through shale
z Mud temperature effects on wellbore

stability
z Cavings analysis

© 2000
Drilling through highly -inclined
highly-inclined
beds
Some rocks (mainly shales) show strength anisotropy, i.e. they tend to be
“stronger” or “weaker” in a given direction.
Thus, the relative angle between the

bedding plane and the wellbore axis
(also called angle of attack) may define
the mechanical behavior of the
formation while being drilled (and
afterwards too !!!) . ng p lane
d i
δ Bed
Angle of attack
This situation has been found in the field, where previously “stable”
formations became troublesome when drilled at lower attack angles (e.g.,
SPE 1721, 30464, 47285 & 53940).

highly-inclined
beds … ((ctd.)
ctd.)
Depending upon the reservoir structural geology, the angle of attack (hence,
the rock mechanical properties) may change along the well trajectory; even
for vertical wells.
Two wells with the same
trajectory drilled through
the same formations, may
The same formations may encounter dramatically
behave differently when re- different rock mechanical
entered at a different angle properties.
of attack.
In addition, the in-situ stress field may also change along the reservoir
structure… but this point will be covered later.
highly-inclined
beds … ((ctd.)
ctd.)
When wells are drilled near faults (with some degree of folding along the
fault) the same situation may occur …
Even vertical wells may be

unstable when drilled near a
fault.
The same formations may

behave differently when re-
entered at a different angle
of attack.
NOTE : It is not uncommon to find that the in-situ stress on each side of the
fault is different !!!
highly-inclined
beds … ((ctd.)
ctd.)
Rock Anisotropy:
… but how dramatic is the variation in the mechanical properties of
β
the rock as function of the angle between bedding and loading?
Laboratory
measurements on
Green River Shale,
Colorado (McLamore
and Gray, 1967)
Diff. ~ 40%
In this old paper,

compression is taken as
negative. Thus, the axial
(larger) stress is called σ3.
highly-inclined
beds … ((ctd.)
ctd.)
Rock Anisotropy … (ctd.):
… likewise, the magnitudes of tensile strength and Young’s modulus

β
also change with orientation …
Laboratory
measurements on
Green River Shale,
Colorado (McLamore
and Gray, 1967)
Diff. ~ 67%
In this old paper,

compression is taken as
negative. Thus, the
extensional stress is called σ1
throughout a series of
Brazilian
© 2002 tests. All rights reserved.
Baker Hughes Incorporated
highly-inclined
beds … ((ctd.)
ctd.)
Rock Anisotropy … (ctd.):
More examples from around the world …
Draupne shale, North Sea

(Økland and Cook, 1998)
14,000
σ c =500 psi
12,000
10,000
Compressive strength (psi) with
8,000
6,000
4,000
Canadian shale
2,000
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
σ 1 orientation relative to bedding (deg)

highly-inclined
beds … stability considerations
Stresses around borehole
• isotropic and homogeneous
• anisotropic and homogeneous
Failure criteria (Mohr Coulomb)
• weak (bedding) plane
• native strength
Wellbore trajectory δ
• angle of attack

highly-inclined
(Non-laminated) (Laminated)
Økland & Cook proposed a
conceptual model
consisting of two
successive phenomena:
1. The failure criterion for
bedding plane slip is met
in the corners of the
borehole
2. An exposed bedding–
parallel sliver in the floor Økland, D., and Cook, J.M.: “Bedding-Related Borehole
or ceiling of the Instability in High-Angle Wells”, paper SPE 47285 presented at
horizontal borehole EUROCK, Trondheim, Norway; 1998.
buckles into the
borehole. The beam
fractures in the middle
Upshot: Ignoring anisotropy can be
and breaks off at the detrimental to the stability of the borehole.
endpoints.
SPE 53940
highly-inclined
…stability
Models of roof behavior in horizontally layered rock. (a) and (b) show the deflection and
cracking in the case of a thinner beam beneath a thicker beam. (c) and (d) show the
deflection and failure in the opposite case – thick beneath thin. (after Goodman 1989).
highly-inclined
…stability
12
Critical Mud Weigh, ppg

11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Attack Angles, degrees
“Both field experience and laboratory evidence …indicate that hole instability
… is not a problem when drilling normal to bedding, or even parallel to
bedding, but becomes very serious when the hole is … nearly parallel to
bedding.” Oakland and Cook, 1998
highly-inclined
…stability
12.5
12
Critical Mud Weight, ppg
11.5
11
down-dip
up-dip
10.5
Cross-dip
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Inclination, degrees
“up-dip well are predicted to be stable with mud weights of around 11.5
ppg….” (Willson et al., 1999, P.4)

highly-inclined
…stability
SPE 79846

highly-inclined
…stability
18
Crossdip
17
16
Minimum MW (ppg)
15
Downdip
14
13
0 30 45 66
12
Updip
11
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Wellbore Azimuth (degrees)

Bedding Plane Dip = 70o
Bedding Plane Dip Direction = 1250

highly-inclined
…stability
Isotropic Strength Anisotropic Strength

highly-inclined
…stability
Combined
isotropic and
anisotropic
strength models,
considering only
the critical mud
weights for
initiation of
shear failure
mode (Mohr-
Coulomb failure
criterion).
OBG, SHG, ShG, PPG, SH DIR.,

TVD, ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft psi/ft deg POIS
8239 1.1 1.04 0.95 0.51 45 0.19
COHE, FRIC, COHEW, FRICW, DIP DIR., DIP,
BIOT psi deg psi deg deg deg
0.95 1000 35.49 20 20 125 70

highly-inclined
beds … ((ctd.)
ctd.)
Stress Perturbation :
• The presence of geological structures (e.g. folds, faults, etc.) may

create local alterations of the far-field in-situ stress, i.e. the stress
field near faults / folds may be different from the regional in-situ
stress field. In-situ stress
field at the
bottom of the
syncline
Far-field in-
situ stress
In-situ stress
field at the Not necessarily
top of the equal
anticline
… Image redrawn from Billings (1956)
highly-inclined
beds … ((ctd.)
ctd.)
Stress Perturbation … (ctd.):
Zone where tensile stress Zone where additional

appears as a consequence of compressive stress occurs as a
folding (plastic rock Æ layer consequence of folding (plastic
thinning due to deformation) rock Æ layer thickening due to
deformation)
If the formations are brittle (i.e. no plastic deformation occurs before failure) …
Æ Tension fractures or small gravity faults might form on the

convex side, while small thrust faults form on the concave side
Æ Under certain interlayer friction conditions, the rocks on the

concave side may be crumpled
… Images redrawn from Billings (1956)

highly-inclined
beds … ((ctd.)
ctd.)
rigid
layer
Depth
low stiffness
layer
The rigid formation holds most of

anticline syncline the overburden load and directs
the load down the limb of the
fold.
Vertical Stress/γZ
On the other hand, the low

stiffness layer cannot sustain the
same amount of loading (see AA’
ρgh and BB’)
(Modified from Goodman, 1989)

highly-inclined
beds … ((ctd.)
ctd.)
Before a fault is created, both blocks are affected by the same stress field.
However, during fault displacement, one of the fault blocks moves; releasing
strain energy (i.e. decreasing its stress). On the other hand, the stress in
the “static” block remains unchanged.
“Static” block
affected by the
pre-faulting stress
field
“Moving” block, releases some
Fault
strain energy thereby

decreasing its stress magnitude
IMPORTANT !!! Æ A well being drilled across a fault may encounter a

dramatically different stress fields on each side of it (therefore avoid
extrapolating stress magnitudes/directions across faults).
highly-inclined
beds … ((ctd.)
ctd.)
Main issues:
• Rock mechanical anisotropy (mainly in shales) due to the fact that

beds are drilled by using a wide range of attack angles. The same
bed may be re-entered at different attack angles, even by the same
well.
• As highly inclined beds are associated with geological structures

such as folds and faults, there is a potential for finding local stress
perturbation. These stress alterations may occur near faults and
across folding structures.
• Given the occurrence of stress perturbation, it is NOT

recommended to extrapolate neither the direction nor the magnitude
of the stress field across faults. The same situation occurs for
wells located at different locations within a folding structure.

Outline
z Drilling through laminated formation

ÎDrilling in and near salt bodies

stability
z Cavings analysis

© 2000
Characteristics of Salt
¾ Salt is highly soluble and may be chemically sensitive to the water
phase of drilling mud
Ö Hole enlargement may occur
Ö Insoluble layers (typically carbonates or anhydrite) may result in the formation of
ledges
Ö Dissolved salts in the mud affect efficiency of polymers, flocculates fresh water
muds (creating a viscosity increase and subsequent hole cleaning issues),
reduces filter cake quality and results in an overall increase in torque and drag
¾ Salt is a viscoplastic substance
Ö Salt cannot tolerate shear stress (i.e., σ1 = σ2 = σ3 = σsalt ~ σv) and will creep
(deform) indefinitely with time until deviatoric stresses vanish
¾ Salt has a high thermal conductivity
Ö Temperature gradients between rock and drilling mud may result in thermally-
activated creep.
¾ Pure salt is nearly impermeable (k < 10-10 Darcy’s)
Ö Pore pressure effects are negligible within salt
¾ Salt intrusions increase the geological complexity
Ö Significant alterations of the stress/PP fields in the vicinity of salt structures
Salt Behavior During Lab Testing
At low temperature conditions
Salt behaves in
brittle manner like transition zone Salt behaves in plastic manner
most other rocks at high stress, σ
at low stress, σ
Shear stress [τ]
φ ~ 0º
φ ~35º NOTE: Salt creep is the dominant mechanism

of wellbore instability during drilling!
Co ~ 1000psi σ′3 σ′1
Normal stress [σ′]

UCS
Upshot: as σ increases, the salt behaves plastically!
To ~ 200 psi

Creep Test Results: Metal vs
Salt
Metal will eventually rupture!
Strain
Tertiary creep
Secondary creep
Primary creep
NOTE: difference in behavior is usually

attributed to: small salt porosity, solution- Salt does not rupture
precipitation within the pore spaces, etc. (creeps indefinitely)!
Metal
Salt Upshot:
elastic strain salt behavior upon loading
is very complex!
Time
Salt Creep Calculation
In practice, it is common to employ the following
simple creep law (Carter & Hansen, 1983):
−B
−n
ε salt = Aσ ⋅ e T
Thermal effects
These are the most important

Effect of stresses
factors affecting salt creep!
where σ is the deviatoric stress, A is a salt constant, B is a temperature exponent, n is the
stress exponent and T is temperature.
Temperature (T) Salt Constant (A) Temperature Exponent (B) Stress Exponent (n)
Degree F psi-1 sec-1 degree K
200 9.58E-14 8000 4.5
250 1.15E-13 8000 4.4
300 1.52E-13 8000 4.4
350 1.33E-13 8000 4.5
400 1.81E-13 8000 4.9
450 1.82E-13 6000 5.5
Data from Barker et al. 1992 for U.S. Gulf Coast salt formations
Common Drilling Problems in Salt
BHA stuck on ledges BHA squeezed

while POOH or RIH while POOH
solution
washout
Salt
creep
BHA stuck while RIH BHA squeezed

due to washout while RIH after
tripping

Warning Signs of Drilling Salt
The presence of salt across the shakers
A lack of cuttings (indicating salt is dissolving into the

mud)
An increase in the chloride concentration in the mud
An increase in the rate of penetration
Increasing torque and drag (hole closure)

Overburden Stress near Salt
Diapirs
far-field well tangent well Vertical Stress
center well
σv increases at the
flank of the salt.
Depth
bed dip angles ~70-80º
target
σv is reduced within the salt

(stresses become isotropic!).
bed dip angles ~30º Tangent Center Far Field
Data taken from Fredrich et. al. 2003

Upshot: σv stress arching occurs along with a possible rotation (deviation
from vertical) of the overburden stress along the flanks of the salt.
Horizontal Stress near Salt
Diapirs
Horizontal Stress
far-field well tangent well

center well
σh increases in the salt to

ensure stress isotropy
Depth
σh is slightly reduced at the
at the flank of the salt.
Tangent Center Far Field

Upshot: σh increases within the salt to reach equilibrium with the
vertical stress. σh is reduced at the flank of the salt.
Shear (von Mises
Mises)) Stress near
Salt Diapirs
σ VM =
1
2
[
(σ1 − σ 2 )2 + (σ 2 − σ 3 )2 + (σ1 − σ 3 )2 ] von Mises Stress
far-field well tangent well

center well
σVM increases substantially

at the flank of the salt.
Depth
σVM is zero within the salt.

Upshot: σVM stress increases substantially along the flanks of the
salt. σVM is zero within the salt (salt cannot tolerate shear stress).
Stress Directions Near Diapir
Salt σh
σH
Stress directions around the salt dome are deflected due to the
presence of the salt!
(after Dusseault, 2003)
Overburden Stress near Salt
Sheets
far-field well tangent well center well

Vertical Stress
σv increases at the
flank of the salt.
~2000 m
Salt sheet
Depth
σv is unaltered
within the salt.
Upshot: Some small stress arching occurs along the flanks of the
salt. σv is not altered within the salt sheet. Data taken from Fredrich et. al. 2003

Horizontal Stress near Salt
Sheets
tangent well center well Horizontal Stress

far-field well
σh increases in the salt to

ensure stress isotropy
Depth
~2000 m
Salt sheet
Upshot: σh increases dramatically within the salt sheet (since σv

does not decrease to create stress isotropy).

Shear Stress Near Salt Sheets
von Mises Stress
far-field well tangent well center well
Depth
~2000 m
Salt sheet
σVM is zero within the salt.
Upshot: σVM stress increases substantially along the flanks of the

salt. σVM is zero within the salt sheet (as is the case for the salt
diapir). Data taken from Fredrich et. al. 2003
Potential Through
Through-- and Near
Salt Geomechanical Hazards
Ref.: Wilson and Fredrich (2005) - SPE 95621

Drilling Through vs. Around Salt
Drilling Through Salt Drilling Around (close to) Salt
Pro's Con's Pro's Con's
Rocks near salt bodies are under the
Allows use of a More cost effective than
Shallow gas hazards are often encountered. influence of complex & elevated stress,
central platform. drilling through salt.
resulting in many drilling difficulties.
Sour gas often encountered directly below
Uncertainty in salt body shape may lead
cap rock (e.g., anhydrite). This requires use
to accidental drilling into the salt.
of sour grade casing.
High MW needed to control salt mechanics. Highly dipping formations near the flanks
This necessitates the need to set casing of the salt result in anisotropic
upon exiting the salt. mechanical failure.
Careful monitoring of mud chemistry is May require several platforms to access
crucial to mitigate salt dissolution. all HC pools.
PP and fracturing pressure are often
Directional control can be difficult in salt.
unknown just above and below the salt.
The formation of ledges within the salt may
result in stuck pipes/wellbore obstructions.
PP and fracturing pressure are often
unknown just above and below the salt.
Rubble zones are often encountered prior to
entry into salt and upon exit out of salt.
Temperature control is needed so that static
temp does not exceed 200 deg F (excessive
salt creep initiation).
Under-reaming is often necessary.
Cementing is often difficult in salt due to
hole rugosity, cement contamination, etc.
Specially designed casing must be used.
Is usually more costly relative to drilling next
to salts method.
Outline

ÎDrilling through faults

stability
z Cavings analysis

© 2000
Drilling Through Faults
Rubble Zone: The region near a fault in which the rock has experienced
brittle failure resulting in many fragmented (brecciated) rock pieces. If the rock
fragments are cemented, the fractures are impermeable (and vice versa).
Formations are also

thinned and dragged
near the fault (leading
to a bed dip change).
Rubble zone occurs in the

vicinity of the fault!
A vertical well will intersect more rubble zone as

well as intersecting the tilted formation at a low
angle of attack. Therefore the well will be more
susceptible to instability!

Many wellpaths are designed to intersect the fault normally
(~90º). The well does not intersect as much rubble zone and
increases the angle of attack. This tends to increase the
stability of the well in the vicinity of the fault!

Fault Reactivation
¾ If the fault is permeable, the effective normal stress acting on the fault will
be reduced due to fluid infiltration (causing slippage along the fault)
¾ lubricating effects by drilling fluid infiltration may also cause slippage
along the fault
¾ leads to stuck pipe, excessive reaming, high torque and drag, etc.

Stress Rotation Near Faults
The orientation of the principal stresses is deflected
by the presence of a pre-existing fault!
from Bell (1990)
Upshot: optimum drilling direction may change near the fault!

Stress Rotation Near Faults
Faults--
Cusiana Field Example
Angle between vertical and σ1 direction

σ1 is horizontal
(foot wall)
σ1 is vertical on the
σ1 direction footwall side of the
becomes fault.
vertical!
Location of the Cusiana field

(hanging wall)
Horizontal distance along top of reservoir
Upshot: stress rotation occurs near the fault!

Cross-section of the Cusiana field
from Charlez et al., 1998. Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

Fractured ((Rubbelized)
Rubbelized) Zones
If the fractures are impermeable… If the fractures are permeable…
Fragmented (rubbelized) rock

mass near a fault. de-stabilized block
wellbore wellbore
Increasing MW will provide additional Increasing MW will increase instability as

support to the wellbore (in terms of the fluid penetrates the fractures reducing
collapse) the confining pressure effect and allowing
the block to fall into the well
Problems Drilling Through
Faults
Faults-- Summary
Stress rotations are possible in the vicinity of faults
Ö The optimum drilling direction may be rotated relative to far field optimum direction
Damage (rubbelized) zones may be present near the fault
Ö Rubbelized rock fragments with cohesion will be stabilized by increasing the MW
Ö Rubbelized rock fragments without cohesion are permeable and therefore increasing
MW tends to de-stabilize the wellbore
Ö Naturally fissile rock (i.e., thinly bedded shale) is particularly susceptible to being
rubbelized due to faulting
Ö It is desirable to intersect the fault plane at a right angle to minimize the length of drilled
section through the damage zone (to reduce WBS incidences)
Bedding dip direction and angles (due to bedding deformation) may
change in the vicinity of the fault
Ö Fault drag causes formation dips and angles to change
Ö Failure along weak planes may occur as the wellbore becomes sub-parallel to bedding
planes.
Fault reactivation
Ö Fluid penetration into the fault may allow movement along the fault plane resulting in
stuck pipe, excessive reaming, high torque and drag, etc.
Outline

ÎDrilling through shale

stability
z Cavings analysis

© 2000
Drilling through shales
Some characteristics of shale formations:
¾ Lamination strength anisotropy (previously discussed)
¾ Clay content reactive - swelling, weakening
¾ Extremely low permeability pore pressure storage
¾ In tectonic environments micro-fractured
Due to these unique characteristics, shale tends to be more

susceptible to failures and accounts for about 75% of borehole
instability problems.

Driving Forces At Shale/Drilling
Mud Interface
NOTE: One or all of these potentials may exist at a given moment in
the subsurface. For low perm rocks, the chemical and thermal
gradients tend to dominate.
¾ Hydraulic gradient µwsh
¾ Electro-chemical gradient
µwm
¾ Thermal gradient
pw
Tw po
where
po = far-field pore pressure Tf
pw = wellbore pressure
µwsh = water activity of shale pore fluid
µwm = water activity of drilling mud
Tf = formation temperature
Tw = drilling fluid temperature

Swelling Properties - Pierre I Shale
after Exposure into NaCl Solutions
awshale = 0.98 Additional swelling
occurs via chemical
0.7
aw=1 Deioned water osmosis for the case of
aw=0.95 NaCl deioned water (aw=1 >
0.6 aw=0.85 NaCl awshale)
aw=0.75 NaCl
Swelling Percentage (%)
0.5
chemical osmosis
0.4 Causal Mechanisms
0.3 1. Capillary action acts
quickly resulting in
0.2 most of the total
De-watering
swelling within
occurs after
minutes
0.1 capillary effects
2. After capillary action,
due to chemical
chemical osmosis
0 osmosis (if aw
affects swelling
NaCl < awshale)
capillary effects secondarily
-0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
from Zhang et al., 2004 Time, Minutes NOTE: Pierre 1 shale is retrieved from a surface outcrop!

Swelling Behavior - Pierre I Shale
Immersed into Simulated Pore Fluid
0.5
0.4
NOTE: This slide

0.3
illustrates the effects of
capillary pressure only!
0.2
Most swelling occurs
as a result of capillary
0.1
effects!
0
1 10 100 1000 10000
from Zhang et al., 2004 T im e, M inutes

Corrected Swelling Behavior - Pierre I
Shale Immersed into NaCl Solutions
0.1
0 Ion movement
-0.1
NOTE: This slide

-0.2
illustrates the effects of
-0.3 chemical osmosis only
water movement
(i.e., capillary effects
-0.4 have been removed)!
aw=1 Deioned water
aw=0.95 NaCl
-0.5 aw=0.85 NaCl
aw=0.75 NaCl
-0.6
1 10 100 1000 10000
from Zhang et al., 2004 Time, Minutes

Effects of Water Activity on
Strength of Pierre I Shale
10000
Deviatoric Strength, psi
9000
8000 De-watering of the

shale leads to an
7000
increase in the
6000
compressive strength
NaCl of the shale!
CaCl2
5000 KCl
Native Shale
4000
0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Water Activity
from Zhang (2005)

Effects of Water and Ions
Movements
z The flux of water into shale:

- Increases pore pressure
- Alters the shale’s strength (Chenevert, 1970)
- Shale swelling (Chenevert, 1970)
z The exchange of ions:

- changes the ionic concentration of pore fluid, which
could affect the shale matrix mechanical properties and
could result in cohesion degradation and cementing bonds
weakening and thus reduces the overall rock strength
(Ghassemi et. al. (2001), Fam and Dusseault (1998).

Chemical Instability –
Pore Pressure Penetration
150 BOREHOLE: 195 PSI
140 2% Sea salt CONFINING: 315 PSI
FORMATION PRESSURE (psi)
130 TEMPERATURE: 158F (70C)

20% KCl, Neat CORE: PIERRE II (E Bedding)
120
110 20% KCl non-Cloud Point Gylcol
100
90 Pmud-Ppore = 125 psi
80 20% KCl Cloud Point Gylcol
70 Aluminum Chemistry
60 PHPA, freshwater
20% NaCl PHPA
50
40
30 Aluminum Chemistry PHPA, 20% NaCl
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
HOURS

Pore Pressure Profiles
Pore pressure caused by hydraulic and chemical potentials can be
calculated∂as
Pp(Lomba
K I et al., nRT K II ∂Cs
2 2000):
− ∇ P− =0
∂t cf D eff c f ∂t
Pp = Pore pressure [=] m/L-t2
KI = A parameter related to permeability [=] L3-t/m
n = Number of molars of constituent of dissociating solute [=] amount
R = Ideal gas constant [=] m-L2/t2-amount-T
T = Formation temperature [=] T
K II = A parameter related to membrane efficiency [=] L3-t/m
Cs = Pore fluid solute concentration [=] mol/L3

D eff = Effective solute diffusion coefficient [=] L2/t
cf = Fluid compressibility [=] t/m

Pore Pressure Distribution As A Function of
σHH ≠ σhh) Due To Chemical Osmosis
Time ((σ
Typical GoM shale, k = 10-9 Darcy, considering only chemical effects
4.0
Osmotically-Induced Pore Pressure, MPa
3.5
t = 10 days
3.0 t = 1 day
t = 0.1 day
2.5 t = 0.001 day
2.0
μwmud - μwshale = 0.2
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Borehole wall r/a from Wolfe (2002)

Pore Pressure in shales
Due to the extremely low permeability, shale tends to

have higher pore pressure. This high pore pressure
can be attributed to:
• depositional environments (native pressure)

• pore pressure transmission (osmotic / hydraulic
effects)
• stress/mechanical loading (poro-elastic effect)
• thermal potential

Pore Pressure Distribution Around A Vertical
σHH ≠ σhh)
Well As A Function of Time ((σ
15 15
At the instant of drilling (t=0.001 day), there is a

14 pressure increase inside the rock (near the wall). 14
13 13
Pore Pressure
t = 1 day
( MPa )
t = 0.1 day
12 t = 0.001 day 12
11 θ = 90° 11 Far-field
pw = 14 MPa pore
pressure
10 10
9 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Borehole wall r/a
Upshot: failure may be initiated inside the rock!

Pore Pressure Distribution Around A Vertical
σHH ≠ σhh)
Well As A Function of Time ((σ
Typical GoM shale, k = 10-9 Darcy, no chemical or thermal effects, in the direction of σH
14
θ = 0°
pw = 14 MPa
12
Pore pressure
Just after drilling (t=0.001 day), there is a pressure

( MPa )
decrease inside the rock (near the wall).

10
Far-field
pore
t = 1 day
8 pressure
t = 0.1 day
t = 0.001 day
6
1 2 3 4 5
Borehole wall r/a from Wolfe (2002)

Pore Pressure Distribution Around
σ H ≠ σ h)
A Vertical Wellbore ((σ
Typical GoM shale, k = 10-9 Darcy, t = 0.001 day, no chemical or thermal effects
0 circumferential flow develops at small time

15
330 30
14 mud pressure
wellbore
300 60 13
12
11
σh 270 90
10
far-field pore pressure
9
240 120 8
210 150
180
PP in region of low compressive stress
PP in region of high compressive stress
from Wolfe (2002)

σH
Pore Pressure Distribution Around
σ H ≠ σ h)
A Vertical Wellbore ((σ
Typical GoM shale, k = 10-9 Darcy, t = 10 days, no chemical or thermal effects
0
14.5
As time passes, the pore 330
30
pressure distribution
becomes symmetric! 14 mud pressure
300 60 13.5
13
σh 270 90 12.5
12
11.5
240 120
11
210 150
180
from Wolfe (2002) σH

The rise in pore pressure has three detrimental effects:
loss of mud hydrostatic support

fracturing of formation
decrease the effective normal stress (fissile shale)
Loss of mud hydrostatic support:
From the equations below, although the increase in pore pressure will tend to
decrease the effective tangential stress, the reduction of effective strength is
more pronounced. This is particularly true in cases where there is a
substantial decrease in UCS due to strength degradation and/or when the
internal friction angle is high.
σ θθ' = 3σ H − σ h − Pw − αPp
β
C f = UCS + ( Pw − αPp ) tan (45 + 2 0
)
2
Formation Fracturing
Pw − αPp = −to
When the pore pressure in shale
has risen to a level where the
difference between the mud
weight and pore pressure
exceeds the tensile strength,
radial fracturing will take place
resulting in splintery cavings.
rock excessive pressure
gradient (Pp>Pw)
Pw chip
causes sloughing
shale
wellbore

Shear Stress
f ailu re line
Reduction of Effective
Normal Stress – Fissile
cri ti cally s tress ed fract ure
Shale n on -critically str essed fr actur e

In fissile shale, when fluid
penetration has taken place, the
reduction in effective normal σ 3’ Norm al Stress
σ1 ’
stress as well the lubricating
effect of infiltrated drilling fluid
tend to promote weak plane σn’ = σn - Po
slippage.
τcritical = μσn’

Drilling Through Shale
fractured (rubbelized) zones/micro-fractured shale
If the fractures are impermeable… If the fractures are permeable…
Fragmented (rubbelized) rock

mass near a fault. de-stabilized block
wellbore wellbore
Increasing MW will increase instability as

Increasing MW will provide additional
the fluid penetrates the fractures reducing
support to the wellbore (in terms of
the confining pressure effect and allowing
collapse)
the block to fall into the well

fractured (rubbelized) zones/micro-fractured shale
Contrarily to conventional treatment of

borehole instability, increasing mud weight
when drilling through micro-fractured
formations has two detrimental effects:
Fluid penetration promoted by high mud weight
reduces the mud hydrostatic support thus
decreases the formation bulk strength
Fluid penetration also provide lubrication to the
fractured surfaces
The key to successful drilling in micro-
fractured (and fissile) shale is therefore to
minimize fluid penetration or pressure
transmission. This can be achieved by either
decreasing the drilling fluid gradient or
eliminating fluid loss by creating an
impermeable internal mud cake.
pore pressure rise
The key to maintain borehole
stability when drilling through
shale is to minimize pore
pressure rise. This can be
achieved by controlling pore
pressure transmission
(including fluid penetration),
avoiding abrupt mechanical
loading and limiting formation
heating.
For high native pore pressure,
increase the mud weight is
effective in controlling splintery
or ‘popping’ shale phenomenon.
It is interesting to note that
high (native) pore pressure
shale and fluid filled micro-
fractured shale has similar
acoustic responses, however,
the treatment for borehole
stability problems is different!
Alternating Sand-Shale Sequences
Typically, losses and tight hole occur in the sandier
units while wellbore enlargements occur in the shalier
units. Plausible reasons are:
stresses in shale are higher (lithology - Poisson’s ratio)
shale tends to have higher pore pressure (native or induced)
the bulk strength of shale may have been reduced by micro-
fracturing (and further reduced by fluid infiltration)
shale is laminated (fissile) and possesses weak planes
chemical effects may have weakened the inherent strength
(reactive)
………….
The key to successful drilling in alternating sand-shale
sequences is to design a mud system that will not
(create and) propagate the fractures in the sands, but
this mud weight could be too low to completely
eliminate breakouts. This can be achieved by utilizing
the concept of borehole strengthening.
Outline

ÎMud temperature effects on wellbore

stability
z Cavings analysis

© 2000
Temperature Effects on Borehole
Consider a hollow cylinder (i.e., rock) with no porosity (φ = 0) at

temperature (Tr) filled with a fluid at temperature (Tf).
Tf Tr
Tf ≠ Tr

Temperature Effects on Borehole
Cont’d
Cont’d
Tr If Tf > Tr (i.e., wellbore heating)
Tf • Higher borehole temperatures (from hot drilling fluid) will cause
the rock to try to expand.
shear failure • The rock (downhole) cannot expand outward (due to confining
σh (breakouts) effect of surrounding rock) or radially (due to the wellbore fluid
pressure).
• This leads to a higher tangential stress, which will increase the
rock’s resistance to hydraulic fracturing but also increase the
potential for shear failure (breakouts).
Tf Tr
If Tf < Tr (i.e., wellbore cooling)
• Lower borehole temperatures (from cool drilling fluid) will cause
the rock to try to shrink.
σh
• This leads to a reduction in the tangential stress, which will
hyd. frac. increase the propensity of hydraulic fracturing as well as reduce
the potential for shear failure.

Cooling Effects on Borehole -
Example
~ 1050 psi tensile stress develops on tensile stress is reduced upon
the wellbore wall during circulation! stopping circulation!
circulating not circulating
Gradual cooling due to circulation leads to Gradual heating (from contact with hot
additional tensile stress rocks) as circulation is ceased reduces
from Tang and Lou (1998- SPE 39505)
the tensile stress
Production Field Data
This chart shows how the injection pressure dropped 400 psi (on a
fractured water disposal well) when the temperature dropped 17º F!
Perkins and Gonzalez

(1981) also noted that
injecting large volumes of
cool fluid during the
process can greatly
reduce the fracturing
pressure!
from Schmidt et al. (1999- SPE 52738)

Mud Heating Effects on LOT-
GoM Example
Instances of cooling
exactly coincided with the
occurrence of mud
losses (i.e., hydraulic
fracturing)!
from Gonzalez et al. (2004- SPE 87217)

Thermally -induced Pore Pressure Distribution
Thermally-induced
in Low Permeability, Porous Media
Typical GoM shale, k = 10-9 Darcy, permeable wall, considering only heat conduction
This10
extreme pressure pulse can Heating combined with low
lead to spalling (i.e., permeability leads to the
circumferential tensile failure).
generation of a pressure
t = 10 days
t = 1 day
Thermally-Induced Pore Pressure
8
t = 0.1 day wave that migrates into the
t = 0.001 day formation
ΔT = +50°C
with time!
6
( MPa )
4
NOTE: This type of behavior is absent in high
permeability rock because the pore pressure can diffuse
2 instantaneously. In low permeability rocks, this requires
that the entire region near the wellbore be analyzed for
failure (i.e., not just the wellbore wall)!
0
1 2 3 4 5
Borehole wall from Wolfe (2002)
r/a
Thermal Effects on Safe MW
Window
Thermal loading affects breakdown pressure more than the collapse pressure!
Typical GoM shale, k = 10-9 Darcy, permeable wall, normal stress environment
from Yu et al. (2001) from Yu et al. (2001)
σv
σH
σh
Heating increases both the collapse and breakdown pressure whereas cooling
leads to a reduction in collapse and breakdown pressure!
Thermal Effects on Safe MW
Window
Typical GoM shale, k = 10-9 Darcy, permeable wall, normal stress environment
Collapse Stress Fracturing Stress
collapse stable
stable
fracture
Both heating and cooling reduces the fracture

Cooling reduces the collapse pressure pressure instantaneously (here the stresses are
instantaneously. However, with time the potential for evaluated inside the rock too). However, with time
collapse increases. Heating produces the opposite the potential for fracturing drastically decreases
effect. while heating but further increases while cooling.
figures taken from Li et al. (1996)
Thermal & Time Effects on Safe
MW Window
Typical GoM shale, k = 10-9 Darcy, permeable wall, strike-slip environment, r =a
3000 3000
Dashed lines represent small time (t = 0.001 day),
Solid lines represent large time (t = 1 day)
Heating (or
ΔT = +50°C
2500 2500 cooling) shifts
ΔT = -50°C tensile failure the MW window
ΔT = 0°C
3
2000 2000
Mud Weight, Kg/m
1500 1500 σv
Safe Operating Zone
1000 Heating 1000
instantaneously
increases the
500 potential for collapse, 500
which reduces with
active shear failure
time. σH
Cooling
0 is initially beneficial 0
0 10
in terms of collapse but20
with 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
σh
time the benefits are
reduced! Borehole Inclination, β° from Wolfe (2002)
Summary of Thermal Effects
permeable rock low permeable rock

(thermoelastic) (porothermoelastic)
Heating yields an instantaneous increase in shear
failure potential due to substantial pore pressure build-
Heating causes additional compressive stresses to
up inside the rock as a result of the differences
develop in the rock. This increases the potential for
between the thermal expansion coefficient of the rock
shear failure but restricts the development of
Heating hydraulic fractures. Since pore pressure build up
and pore fluid. The pressure build up is short-lived and
the potential for shear failure gradually decreases with
does not occur due to high permeability, time
time. Heating also greatly reduces the fracturing
importance is lessened.
pressure due to a significant pore pressure build-up
inside the rock.
Cooling creates tensile stresses and therefore
Cooling instantaneously reduces the breakdown
hydraulic fracturing is more likely (shear failure
Cooling potential is simultaneously reduced). Pore pressure
diffusion effects are irrelevant due to high
pressure, which increases with time. It also quickly
reduces the potential for shear failure, which will
gradually increase with time.
permeability of the rock.

Outline


stability
ÎCavings analysis

© 2000
Cavings Analysis
Cavings analysis can provide information on:
¾ The mode of wellbore failure
¾ Wellbore cleaning issues
¾ Remedial actions required to stabilize the wellbore Drill marks
Cavings/cuttings characteristics:
¾ Cuttings usually contain “bit marks” and are usually
distinguished from cavings on this basis
¾ Cavings are typically 0.5-2 inches in size but may be as
large as 4-5 inches
¾ Cavings are generally categorized into three types:
→ Angular
→ Splintery
→ Tabular

Angular Cavings
Angular cavings are characterized by curved, rough surfaces resulting
from shear failure along the borehole wall.
- fresh surfaces indicate borehole breakout is presently occurring
- old surfaces indicate that shear failure occurred previously (e.g., rubble zone)
σθθ
Excessive σθθ leads to curved and

shear failure
rough
failure
Pw surface
wellbore
Remedial Action(s)
-Increase MW (do not exceed FG)
-Closely monitor ECD & control tripping speeds
-Effective hole cleaning measures should be
implemented
-Select optimum well trajectory to avoid shear failure
Angular Cavings
rough, curved
surfaces

Splintery Cavings
Splintery cavings are characterized by long, thin, concave surfaces
resulting from radial spalling due to drilling underbalanced in low
permeability rocks (i.e., σ’r<To).
- In isotropic rocks, failure will occur at all points along the wellbore
- In anisotropic rocks, preferential failure will occur along the wellbore
rock excessive
pressure gradient
Pw chip
(Pp>Pw) causes
sloughing shale
wellbore
Remedial Action(s)
-Increase MW
-Reduce penetration rate curved and concave
-Monitor ECD & reduce tripping speed (swabbing) (splintery) failure
surface
Splintery Cavings
long, thin, concave surfaces

Tabular Cavings
Tabular cavings are characterized by smooth, flat surfaces that are parallel
to subparallel. These typically result from failure along bedding planes or
cleavages in pre-existing fractures/joints sets.
- May yield square-shaped hole bedding plane failure
- Image logs often show enhanced enlargement on
one side of the hole only!
flat, parallel
de-stabilized
failure along block surfaces
pre-existing
fractures
corner
failure
Remedial Action(s) picture taken from Økland and Cook (1998)

-Implement effective fluid loss measures (to plug conductive fractures)
-Reduce drillstring vibrations as well as swab & surge (i.e., tripping speed)
-Minimize instances of back reaming
Tabular Cavings
flat, parallel,
old surfaces

Wellbore Stability
Case Study

Application examples
ÎCase Study I
– Open-hole stability analysis of
horizontal wells under production
scenarios
z Case Study II
– Wellbore integrity assessment during
under-balanced drilling
z Case Study III
– Drilling through inclined laminated
formations
Case Study I
Open -hole stability analysis of horizontal
Open-hole
wells under production scenarios
Objective: To investigate the

stability of horizontal wellbores
under several production
scenarios in order to select a
suitable completion strategy
which guarantees borehole
integrity during the productive
life of the field.
ST-2: Drilled Horizontally (W-side)

Reference: SPE 105332 ST-3: Horizontally Planned (E-side)
H-2: Horizontally Planned (W-side)

Formation mechanical
properties characterizations
GEOMECHANICS
In-situ Stress &

Rock Mechanical
Pore Pressure
Property Model
Models
Laboratory testing on core samples (Discrete

(discrete data)
(Triaxial
(triaxial tests,
tests, acoustic
acoustic measurements,
measurements, hollow
hollow cylinder
cylinder test)
test)
Log-based dynamic mechanical properties

(Elastic
(elastic moduli and Poisson’s ratio)
Empirical correlations for rock strength

(Lacy, Lal, Coates-Denoo, Deere-Miller, etc)
Log-based static mechanical properties

(Micromechanical
(micromechanics approach)
approach)

Logging of Mechanical Properties (LMP)
(micro-mechanics approach)
(micro-mechanics
Log Inputs
DTP, DTS, Porosity, Lithology, σa
Saturations, ZDEN, Fluids Produce Stress-
Properties, Stresses Strain Curves
σr
Produces
Virtual
Core Sample σa
Applying
Virtual
Stresses εr εa
to the “Core
Sample”

Poisson’s Ratio, Biot’s Constant,
Poisson’
Cohesion, Internal Friction Angle

Log-based static mechanical
Log-based
properties
z The Micromechanics Model
provides a continuous
representation of static
mechanical properties at
different confining
conditions
Mohr-Coulomb
failure envelope
In -situ stress & pore pressure
In-situ
characterizations
GEOMECHANICS
In-situ Stress &

Rock Mechanical
Pore Pressure
Property Model
Models
Vertical
Vertical/overburden
Stress (Overburden
stress
Stress)
(formation
Formation density
density integration
integration throughout
throughout the
the lithology
lithology column)
column
Magnitude of the Minimum

minimum Horizontal
horizontal Stress
stress
(Active
(active measurement of the fracture closure pressure)
Magnitude
Magnitude
of the Maximum
of the maximum
Horizontalhorizontal
Stress (Back-analysis
stress
calculation
(back-analysis
from afrom
borehole
evidence
shearoforshear
tensile
or failure
tensile evidence)
failure)
Horizontal
Horizontal Stress
stress Orientation
orientation (breakout
(Breakout or
or induced
Induced fractures)
fractures)
Pore
Pore Pressure
pressure Profile
profile (Pressure
(pressure data points, acoustic
Acoustic logs)
logs)

In -situ stress analysis
In-situ
In-Situ stress tensor

⎡σ xx τ xy τ xz ⎤ ⎡σ H 0 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
σ = ⎢τ xy σ yy τ yz ⎥ = ⎢⎢ 0 σ h 0 ⎥⎥
⎢τ xz τ yz σ zz ⎥
⎣ ⎦ xyz ⎢⎣ 0 0 σ v ⎥⎦ X 'Y 'Z '
Density log dw
sf
Vertical stress (overburden) z
ds
ρ b (z )gdz
TD
σ v = ρ w gd w + ∫sf
Depth of
interest

In-situ σ1

⎡σ xx τ xy τ xz ⎤ ⎡σ H 0 0⎤
⎢ ⎥ σ3
σ = ⎢τ xy σ yy τ yz ⎥ = ⎢⎢ 0 σh 0 ⎥⎥
⎢ τ xz τ yz σ zz ⎥ σ v ⎥⎦ X 'Y 'Z '
⎣ ⎦ xyz ⎢⎣ 0 0
φf ˜ 60º
Minimum Horizontal Stress σ2

Uniaxial strain • ν , α from the mechanical property model
compaction process • Pp from reservoir pressure data
ν Eα t νE
σ h ,min = (σ − αPp ) + αPp + ΔT +
E
Δ ε + Δε y
1 −ν 1 −ν 1 −ν 1 −ν
v 2 x 2
Fracture closure
σh,min pressure from a mini- Thermal Lateral
frac test performed in induced strains and
0.914
an offset West-side stress tectonic
psi/ft
well. effects
In-situ
⎡σ xx τ xy τ xz ⎤ ⎡σ H 0 0⎤ Maximum Horizontal stress
⎢ ⎥
σ = ⎢τ xy σ yy τ yz ⎥ = ⎢⎢ 0 σh 0 ⎥⎥
⎢ τ xz τ yz σ zz ⎥
• Back-analysis using breakout
⎣ ⎦ xyz ⎢⎣ 0 0 σ v ⎥⎦ X 'Y 'Z '
size measurement
• Breakdown pressure – minifrac
Fracture closure line: (minifrac)

z σh,min = 0.914 psi/ft at 13,134 ft.
Breakdown line: (tensile failure)

z Mud losses reported with MW =
18.7 ppg (0.971 psi/ft) at 12,572 ft.
Breakout line: (compressive failure)

In-situ
In-Situ stress tensor Direction of the horizontal
⎡σ xx τ xy τ xz ⎤ ⎡σ H 0 0⎤ stresses
⎢ ⎥ • Breakouts and hydraulically
σ = ⎢τ xy σ yy τ yz ⎥ = ⎢⎢ 0 σh 0 ⎥⎥ induced fractures identified on
⎣ ⎦ xyz ⎢⎣ 0 0 borehole image logs
• Regional stress regime
Hydraulically
Induced
Fractures
Borehole
Breakouts

In -situ stress analysis - summary
In-situ
W-2
Normal faulted stress regime,

but very close to a strike-slip
stress regime
σv ≥ σH > σh
W-2
Maximum horizontal W-6

Stress direction:
East-side: N35E
West-side: N45E
σH,max
σh,min

Wellbore stability basics
[σ ]x' y ' z ' = [Q]T [σ ]XYZ [R]
(East)
Wellbore Earth
Coordinate Coordinate
System System (North)
Zs
Z Ys
βs Xs
Y
(Down)
αs
X
far-field stress

Y X Earth
East North Coordinate
System
Z
Down
Shear failure modes: Borehole

Coordinate
System
σz’z’
z Breakout shear failure
σ 'θθ > σ ' z ' z ' > σ 'rr y’
σrr Cylindrical
Coordinate
z Toric shear failure z’ x’ System
σ ' z ' z ' > σ 'θθ > σ 'rr Low-side

borehole
σθθ
Drilling
z Helical shear failure direction
σ ' z ' z ' > σ 'rr > σ 'θθ Cartesian to Cylindrical

Stress tensor transformation

β
C f = UCS + ( Pw − αPp ) tan 2 (450 + )
Effective compressive -165-170-175 180
175 170
2
165
-160 160
strength -150
-155 155
150
-145 12000 145
-140 140
-135 135
-130 9000 130
-125 125
-120 120
-115 6000 115
-110 110
-105 105
3000
-100 100
-95 95
-90 0 90
-85 85
-80 80
-75 75
-70 70
-65 65
-60 Compressive stress 60
-55 55
-50 50
-45 45
-40 40
-35 35
-30 30
-25 25
-20 20
-15 -10 10 15
-5 5
0
Borehole Low-Side
Horizontal borehole stability
predictions (multiple drawdown)
ST-2
Increasing Drawdown condition, DP

ΔPdrawdown = Pr − Pwf

Reservoir depletion – effects on
in-situ stresses
α (1 − 2ν )
In-situ stress path during reservoir depletion Δσ h = ΔP
(1 − ν ) p
1.2
Cleary & Geertsma (1978)
1.1
Stress gradient, [psi/ft]
1.0
0.9
0.8 Initial σh σh
reservoir Intermediate
0.7 Pressure Pressure
0.6 Overburden stress Abandonment

Maximum horizontal stress Pressure
0.5 Minimum horizontal stress
0.4
10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000
Reservoir pressure, [psi]
Overburden stress, σv

predictions (reservoir depletion)
ST-2
Reservoir pressure
depletion
predictions (reservoir depletion)
ST-2
Initial
reservoir Intermediate Abandonment
Pressure Pressure Pressure

Case study I – concluding remarks
z Borehole stability analysis requires both mechanical

property characterization and in-situ stress tensor
estimation.
z Stability predictions of horizontal wellbores under
open-hole production scenarios helped to define well
completion/production strategy:
– Safeguard well integrity during the productive live
of reservoir
– Early remediation advice: completion & production
strategy decisions
– Strength degradation when acid treatments are
planned.
z The maximum drawdown for a stable horizontal
borehole reduces with reservoir depletion.
Application examples
z Case Study I
– Open-hole stability analysis of
horizontal wells under production
scenarios
ÎCase Study II
– Wellbore integrity assessment during
z Case Study III
– Drilling through inclined laminated
formations
Case Study II
Wellbore integrity assessment - under -balanced drilling
under-balanced
Objective:
Assess the degree of instability with under-
balance condition.
Establish maximum under-balance for
given rock strength and in-situ stress Sta. Rosa
characteristics. San Joaquinaco
Mar Cariberibe
Sta. Ana
Sucre
Sucre
Goal: Anzoá
Anzoátegui
Monagas
Delta
Amacuro
Provide inputs for establishing hole

El Toco
cleaning, ECD, drag-and-torque, and

Anaco
UE Gas / Condensado
fluid volume trends.

Optimize under-balanced drilling
operations.
Reduce drilling cost and maximize
production. Reference: SPE/IADC 99165
Assembly of experience base
Considerable wellbore instability related problems
in the Merecure and San Juan formations.
The occurrence of lost circulation along side with
pack-off, reaming, tight hole, over-pull and cavings.

Pore pressure model
16.0
NewPP
• Combined information from more recent

14.0
pressure measurements in sands.

• Normal pressure gradient in shales.
MW Usado
12.0
10.0
Perd Circ.
EMW (ppg)
8.0
Medida
6.0
4.0
DIF
PP
2.0
0.0
7700
7800
7900
8000
8100
8200
8300
8400
8500
8600
8700
8800
8900
9000
9100
9200
9300
9400
9500
9600
9700
9800
9900
M easured D epth (ft)

In -situ stress characterizations
In-situ

Model calibrations – breakout and
drilling induced fracture
Sv Min MW Frac. Grad. Max MW PP
DIF Lost Circ. MW Used LOT/FIT
Observed BO Washouts Predicted BO Caliper
EMW (ppg) Breakouts (degrees)

0 5 10 15 20 25 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
9000 9000
9100 9100
9200 9200
9300
9300
Measured Depth (feet)

9400
M e a su re d D e p th (ft)
9400
9500
9500
9600
9600
9700
9700
Breakouts
9800
9800
9900 80deg
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
9900
Caliper (inches)

Mud weight window
IDEAL
REAL LIFE MW
Excessive BO Minor BO In-gauge Minor Losses Excessive Losses

hole
σ3
Pw Pw Pw Pw Pw
Mud weight window - σ2 Mud weight window -
Merecure Pore
Low Mud Weight Scale High
σ3 (magnitude)
Vidoño and San Juan
Pressure

Breakout expected
Mud Weight 10 ppg 8 ppg 6 ppg 4 ppg
Ave. breakout width
2.7 10.6 15.5 21.3
in Merecure (degrees)
Ave. breakout width
7.8 28.1 34.8 41.9
in San Juan (degrees)

Mud losses – conventional vs.
under-balanced
Merecure San Juan
12000
Merecure = 8 ppg (ΔP= - 900 psi)
San Juan = 7 ppg (ΔP= - 1500 psi)
10000
8000
Bbls
6000
4000
2000
Avg.
JM-190
JM-193
JMN-204
JMN-205
JMN-214
JMN-215
JMN-216
JM-220
JM-221
G-92
Drilling time and cost saving
6-1/2” Hole - Conventional
W ell Es tim ate d Re al Cle an
days K$. days K$. days K$.
G-91 / JI-X 14 677.0 9.0 886.6 9.0 886.6
G-93 / JI-O 20 1,221.2 11.8 591.8 11.8 591.8
JM -214 / JI-G 18 20.7 1,186.4 18.1 1,082.0
JM -215 /JI-B 20 1,242.7 29.6 1,596.7 17.8 644.7
JM -216 / JI-F 18 959.9 33.5 2,074.1 20.0 1,531.9
JM -220 / JJ-C 14 793.7 21.9 928.1 19.7 779.9
JM -221 / JI-Z 24 654.8 19.1 995.5 17.8 938.3
JM -225 / JI-J 18 793.9 14.1 778.5 11.8 650.6
JM -227 / JI-N 21 867.6 16.4 800.8 16.4 800.8
Ave rage 18.6 901.3 19.6 1093.2 15.8 878.5
- 4 days - 4.7 days - 183.2 K$

6-1/2” Hole – Under Balance
W ell Estimated Real Clean
Rig
days K$. days K$. days K$.
G-92 / JI-H GW-61 6 158.3 7.4 507.8 6.6 471.9
JM-229 / JJ-E GW-67 7 814.8 24.0 1,664.6 11.9 998.9
JM-230 / JJ-G GW-60 7 730.0 22.4 1,304.0 17.2 1,057.7
JM-233 / JJ-F PD-719 7 466.6 14.8 545.1 10.8 387.5698
JM-235 / JH-X GW-68 13 9.5 580.6 9.0 560.6
Average 8.0 542.4 15.6 920.4 11.1 695.3

Drilling time and cost saving
6-1/2" Hole Actual trend
40
Tim e (days
30
20
10
Avg. UB
*JM -233
*JM -230
*JM -229
*JM -235
JM -214
JM -215
JM -220
JM -221
JM -225
JM -216
Average
*G -92
G-91
G-93
Conventional JM -227 New Technologie
Estimeted Real Clean

Case study II –
concluding remarks
z A geomechanical model was developed and
calibrated with respect to the field data, wireline
logs, breakout simulation and DIF.
z Underbalance mud weights were recommended
based on the results of the geomechanical
modeling.
z Lost circulations have successfully been avoided
following the implementation of underbalance mud
weight recommendations.
z Drilling rates were tripled in comparison with the
conventional methods (8-1/2” and 6-1/2” holes).
z A total saving in time of 60 rig days, and in cost of
more than $1MM have been realized, in prevention
of fluid losses, in the 5 wells drilled so far following
the underbalance mud weight implementations.
Case Study III
Drilling through inclined laminated formations
Objective:
Assess the degree of instability when drilling through inclined
laminated formations
Establish the optimum mud weight and wellbore trajectory to
minimize borehole instability.

Some background information……
z Subsea development
“traditional” well design
(intersect zone “A” vertically)
– All wells drilled from drill
centers
– 3 critical zones (A,B,C)
• Zone “A”: recently
“Advanced” well design encountered wellbore
(intersect zone “A” at high angle)
instability while drilling high
Tertiary angle wells
• Zone “B”: lost circulation
zone “A”
issues
z Zone “C”: very weak,
anisotropic shale (keep hole
near vertical)
– Initial 2 wells in field→ used
WBM (shale reactivity issues)
– SBM used to date
zone “B”
– Most HA wells in past had
significant WBS issues (no
zone “C” WBS analysis available on past
failed wellbores!!)

Some background information……
“traditional” well design

(intersect zone “A” vertically) z Traditional Well Design ~ 25
wells
– Directional – S-shape
“Advanced” well design – 300 – 450 tangent angle
(intersect zone “A” at high angle) – Drop tangent angle to 100 in
Tertiary zone “C” and reservoir
z Advanced Well Design – 3 wells
zone “A” – Extended Reach – S-shape
– Build to 600 to 700 through
upper shales
– Hold ~3000m tangent
– Drop tangent angle to 100 in
zone “C” and reservoir
zone “B”
zone “C”

Well #1 – traditional well design
z Planned pilot hole:
– Seismic tie-in
– Formation evaluation
– Geomechanical model
update Tertiary
– 45° hole drilled thru
zones “B” and “C” zone “A”
z Planned Production
hole
– Kick off in shale (zone zone “B”
“C”) above target

production hole
reservoir zone “C”
– KOP near fault

– Horizontal completion pilot hole

Well #1 – pilot hole
z Well drilled thru zones A,B,C
with no significant problems
initially
z Then……after approximately
1 day an abundance of
“angular” and “splintery”
cavings was observed.
Wellsite geologist indicated
cavings are from zone “C”.
z Mud weight was increased to
combat the problems (high
PP and/or low UCS??)
z Continued drilling ahead
z Approximately 2 days later,
hole collapsed → left BHA in
hole (no logs!)
z Sidetrack required
Well #1 – sidetrack 1 (2nd pilot hole)
• Sidetrack drilled parallel to
original hole with higher
MW.
• Drilled beyond zone “C” with
little problems.
• To address hole cleaning
issues, several hours of
circulating and rotating Tertiary
performed within zone “C”.
• Shortly thereafter,
abundance of “tabular” and
“blocky” cavings was
observed.
• It was decided to POOH &
sidetrack.
2nd pilot hole
planned production hole
initial pilot hole

Well #1 – sidetrack 2 (final
production hole)
z Well ST2 drilled nearly vertical
thru zone “C” with no
problems
– Fault was avoided within
zone “C”
– Minimal “angular” cavings
Tertiary
present
– Shift in bedding dip from 10°
to 55°→ two pilots drilled
nearly parallel to bedding
final production hole
planned production hole
initial pilot hole

Well #1 – stable mud weight
simulations
Anisotropic Case
PetroCanada-Anisotropic Case
0
12.5
330 30
75 12
Anisotropic Isotropic Field Mud Weight 60 11.5
300 45 60
12 11
30 10.5
15 10
11
270 90 9.5
9
10 8.5
8
240 120
Mud Weight, ppg
7.5
9 7
210 150
180
8
Isotropic Case
PetroCanada-Isotropic Case
7
0
7.29
330 30
75
7.19
6 60
300 60 7.09
45
30 6.99
5 15 6.89
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
270 90 6.79
Well Inclination, deg.
6.69
6.59
240 120 6.5
Formation dip & dip direction = 550, 1080 210 150

6.4
Wellbore azimuth = 1150 180

Well #2 – extended reach drilling
(ERD)
• Drilled beyond zone “A” with little
problems.
• POOH, several significant tight
spots observed in zone “A”.
• These were not present in all
previous wells (which were drilled “Advanced” well design
with < 60° inclination). (intersect zone “A” at high angle)
• Abundance of “angular” & Tertiary

“tabular” cavings were observed
several days after drilling.
zone “A”
• It was speculated that roof
collapse-type failure was
beginning.
zone “B”
zone “C”

Well #2 – stable mud weight
simulations Wireline Data LWD real-time LWD real-time
2 wk 2 wk initial
MW used
Formation dip & dip direction = 150, 1080

Wellbore azimuth = 1150 The attack angle in this case is referred to the bedding plane.
Well #2 – drilling fluid penetration
Wireline Data LWD real-time LWD real-time
Wireline Data LWD real-time LWD real-time initial
2 wk 2 wk initial
Confirms fluid
penetration along
weak planes in
shale with time!
No invasion measured
Slight invasion measured 2 while drilling
weeks later
Case study III –
concluding remarks
z Early recognition of bedding plane characteristics
is critical to optimizing the “attack angle” and the
mud weight when drilling through inclined
laminated formations.
z Increased mud weight to account for additional
pressure to stabilize anisotropic formation can
exacerbate wellbore instability due to fluid
penetration. Mud additives must be added to
minimize fluid leak-off.
z The geometry of cavings provides a means to
characterize the failure mode and must be
accurately monitored.
z Four (4) ERD wells have been drilled to date with
nearly zero non-productive times (NPT).

Hydraulic Fracturing -
Rock Mechanics Considerations

Outline
¾ Background
¾ Effects of in-situ stress on fracture orientation
and propagation
¾ Effects of closure stress, bed thickness and rock
mechanical properties on fracture containment
¾ Pressure analysis during hydraulic fracturing
¾ Special cases in hydraulic fracturing
¾ Reservoir connectivity

Background – Creating a
hydraulic fracture
During a hydraulic fracturing job, fluid is injected at a relatively

high pressure into the formation inducing a TENSILE fracture
σc
Upper Bounding Layer
Closure stress
contrast is,
perhaps, the
most important Pay
parameter Zone
affecting fracture
containment
Lower Bounding Layer

Background – Hydraulic
fracturing applications
Reservoir stimulation Æ Enhancement of well productivity /
injectivity of hydrocarbon reservoirs
Reservoir management Æ Access to naturally fractured zones,

increase of drainage efficiency, injection / production of fluids
in thermal energy projects
Stress measurement Æ Minifrac, LOT, XLOT
Waste management Æ Massive waste injection, drill cuttings re-

injection
Sand management Æ Frac-packs in poorly consolidated

formations and sanding-prone rocks

Importance of in-situ stress in
Direction Æ Controls fracture orientation (dip and

azimuth); horizontal vs. vertical
Magnitude Æ Determines the fluid injection pressure;

thus, the choice of tubular and pumps
Stress contrast Æ Dominant role in fracture containment;

thus, controls fracture geometry

Origin and magnitude of in-situ
stresses
σ In-situ stress due to overburden +

tectonics
At a large scale, fractures open

and propagate along the path of
least resistance ÆALWAYS
NORMAL to σ3
Due to the weight of the overlying

σh min rock:
Æ σv ~ 1.0 psi/ft (normally)
σH max σv Æ σh min ~ 0.7 psi/ft (normally)
Depth
Background - Fracture
classifications
s3 s1
s1 s1
mode I mode II mode III

opening closing
Induced: Induced: Induced:

Petal Compaction band Shear fractures/faults, initial
Centerline (experiments) breakout, reactivated joints/faults.
Hydraulic
Natural: Natural:
Natural: Compaction band Normal/reverse/strike slip - bedding
Joint (sand) plane deformation bands
Vein Stylolite (carbonates) (cataclastic faults).

Fracture orientation - Normal
stress field
Normal regime Æ σv > σHmax > σhmin
Hydraulically-induced fracture is vertical
σ1 = σv
ra ct u re
F
pl ane
Fault
σ2 = σHmax σ3 = σhmin
φ
Hydraulic
(Redrawn from Dusseault, 2004) fracture
Fracture orientation – Strike slip
regime
Strike-slip regime Æ σHmax > σv > σhmin
Hydraulically-induced fracture is vertical
σ2 = σv
σ3 = σhmin
σ1 = σHmax
n e
p la
re
r a ctu
F
Hydraulic
(Redrawn from Dusseault, 2004) fracture
Fracture orientation – Thrust
regime
Thrust regime Æ σHmax > σhmin > σv
Hydraulically-induced fracture is horizontal
(Redrawn from Dusseault, 2004) Hydraulic
fracture
lane
σ3 = σv c ture p
Fra
φ
σ1 = σHmax σ2 = σhmin

Fracturing process - Minifrac
Breakdown pressure
Bottom hole pressure
Tensile strength
Re-opening
pressure
ISIP
σC
Flow rate
Flow rate
time
ISIP is only an UPPER BOUND for the value of closure stress

Æ ISIP > σc !!! (Most people assume they are equal)
The fracture initiation at breakdown pressure may be defined as
(Hubbert and Willis, 1957):
Æ assumes the rock to be impervious (i.e.
Pb = 3 σ h − σ H + T0 − p p negligible fluid leak-off) and linear-elastic.
In-situ stress - closure
The magnitude of the net pressure determines

fracture propagation Æ Pnet = Pf – σc
The LARGER
the magnitude
p of σc , the more
pf DIFFICULT it is
to open the
fracture !!!
σ3 = σC
Outline
¾ Background
and propagation
¾ Effects of closure stress, formation thickness
and rock mechanical properties on fracture
containment

Effect of stress contrast on
fracture containment
Closure stress contrast is the single most important parameter

controlling fracture propagation !!!
- Stress differences between the target formation and the adjacent

layers determine fracture height containment characteristics
Æ contained vs. “run-away” fractures
- Other parameters such as rock mechanical properties contrast,

flow rate, fluid viscosity although important have less effect on
fracture propagation

Effect of stress contrast on fracture
containment … (continued)
Stress
profile,
Mesaverde
Group, Rifle,
Colorado
(after
Warpinski et
al., 1985)
Normally,
σsand < σshale

ν
σh = [σ V − α PP ] + α PP In general, ν coal > ν shale > ν sand
1 −ν
In non-tectonic
environments,
generally,
σ3 Coal > σ3 Shales
> σ3 Sands

Hydraulic fractures in the
laboratory
σz = 3000 psi
σy = 1300 psi
(coming out of σx = 1050 psi
the picture plane)
Haimson and Fairhurst, 1969

300 psi
300 psi
400 psi 400 psi

Photographs of
hydraulically induced
fractures in tuff
samples (taken from
Warpinski et al.,
1982)
The same fracture height containment
behavior has been observed in the field
(Smith et al., 1982; Warpinski et al., 1982)
Hydraulic fractures in the field
WELDED
TUFF
FRACTURE
Mineback experiments
(Warpinski et al., 1982)
ASH FALL
TUFF

σc2
hs2
σc1 h 2a
hs2
σc2
Fracture profile Width profile
σc2 hs2
2a σσc2 <<σσc3
σc1 h
c2 c3
Æ
Æhhs2 >>hhs3
s2 s3
hs3
σc3
Fracture profile Width profile
The ellipses shown here are a GROSS APPROXIMATION of the actual

fracture geometry. In reality, fracture shape is much more irregular !!!

Fracture height propagation – (Example from Warpinski and Smith, 1989):
Stress (psi)
2500
Fracture height propagation is
1200 slowed down by the presence
1500 of a layer with σ3=1700 psi
1000 Fracture height propagation

rate is increased noticeably
1250 due to the presence of a low
1700 stress horizon ( σ3=1200 psi )
2000
Fracture height propagation
rate is decreased dramatically
due to the presence of a high
stress barrier ( σ3=2500 psi )
¾ ALL the equations shown above NEGLECT the effect of pressure

losses due to vertical flow Æ Thus, their results tend to be overly
conservative !!!
Further injection will create
additional height but almost
negligible length increment
σc2
σc1
Pressure
h
σc1
σc2
ΔP
time
ΔP
Due to additional pressure losses, it
becomes easier to grow height than
to extend the fracture length
Behavior of the pressure vs. time curve allows for quality control and
geometry confirmation !!!
Effect of formation thickness on
fracture containment
Values of net pressures for creating a 700 ft fracture under the following conditions:
Q=30 bpm, μ=150 cp, C=0.001 ft√min, Xf=700 ft (data generated by using
Stimplan® from NSI Technologies, 2005)
10000
Pnet 2 = P – σC2
E= 6 *10 e6 psi
E= 4 *10 e6 psi Pnet 1 = P – σC1
E= 2 *10 e6 psi
E= 1 *10 e6 psi
Pnet 2 = P – σC2
Net pressure (psi)
1000
ΔPnet = Pnet 1 – Pnet 2 = σ2 – σ1
Æ For containment to occur, the net

pressure in formation 1 should not exceed
100
10 100 1000
the value of the stress closure differential
Fracture height (ft)
(σ2 – σ1)
Æ For a given fracture length, keeping a fracture within a thinner vertical interval
requires more degree of confinement (because the value of Pnet becomes larger)
than in the case of a thicker formation.

Effect of formation thickness on
fracture containment … (continued)
¾ When the thickness of a stress barrier is considered, the confining effect of that
layer is effectively reduced (i.e. thin, high stress formations may not stop fracture
height growth once certain pressure threshold is overcome)
¾ The “minimum” thickness of a stress barrier is a function of the thickness of the
pay-zone, the stress differential, and the mechanical properties contrast between
the two layers.
C
A
Horizon B is probably a better stress barrier than formation C !!!

Æ B is a much thicker interval with slightly lower closure stress than C
Æ Rule-of-thumb: In order to be effective, the stress barrier should be as thick
as the treated formation (or thicker !!!)

Effect of Young’s modulus
contrast on fracture containment
Young’s modulus contrast is also a factor affecting fracture height
containment (although not as important as stress contrast)
- E contrast may slow down the fracture height propagation rate; however,
it is not a mechanism of arrest (i.e. it does not “stop” fracture height
propagation)
- If a fracture enters a stiffer formation, then its width will be reduced (i.e. it
becomes increasingly difficult to open the fracture); thus, flow resistance
will increase making further fracture propagation more difficult
ÆIn the field, normally, Esh < Ess ; thus, the fracture would be more easily
propagated in shales. However, this behaviour is contrary to the effect
created by stress contrast
STRESS CONTRAST IS MORE IMPORTANT !!!

Effect of Young’s modulus
contrast on fracture containment
H h
NOTE that (2L/h) / (H/h) is only

slightly larger than 1 for the range
of mechanical properties contrast
expected in the field (with Δσc =0)
Plot built based on the work by van

Eekelen (1982)
Æ E2 / E1 values are normally less than 15; thus, mechanical properties contrast is
expected to SLIGHTLY affect fracture propagation (i.e. the effect is not strong
enough to stop the fracture height growth).

Summary - effects of stress contrast,
formation thickness and mech. prop.
• In hydraulic fracturing, nature ALWAYS takes the path of least

resistance
• Closure stress contrast (i.e. ΔPnet ) is the single MOST
IMPORTANT parameter controlling fracture propagation
• Usually, closure stress in shales is higher than in sands; thus,
they act as stress barriers
• The thickness of the stress barrier is also important; a good
stress barrier should be thicker than the treated formation
• Young’s modulus contrast also affects the fracture height
growth. However, its effect is not as important as the effect of
stress contrast

Outline
¾ Background
and propagation
¾ Effects of closure stress, rock mechanical
properties and leak-off coefficient on fracture
geometry
Pressure analysis during
Fracture propagation Leak-off coefficient, fracture
diagnosis geometry (Xf, w), and efficiency Confirmation of Leak-off
(containment) coefficient, and fracture
geometry. Estimate of reservoir
transmissivity (kh)
Shut-in
After closure
Bottom hole pressure
Closure stress
Injection Fracture
closing
Time
Pressure analysis during hydraulic
fracturing - pumping in
Assumptions Æ vertical fracture, with L >> H, constant flow rate and viscosity
Stable height growth (shown

here) OR increased fluid loss
Reasonable height OR tip effect-dominated Unstable height
containment, fracturing growth, injection
unrestricted becomes pointless
extension (no length growth)
σ1
σ5
σ3 H0
σ5
σ7 Mode I Mode II Mode IV
Mode III occurs when there is a flow restriction in the fracture Æ slurry
dehydration leading to screen-out, width reduction in higher stress zones

fracturing - pumping in … (continued)
Nolte-Smith Plot (Nolte and Smith, 1981):
Log P net
e III 1
d (Smith, 2003)
Mo 1/ 4
Mode II ⎡ E μqL ⎤
eI
Pnet ≈ ⎢ + Ptip ⎥
⎣ (1 − ν ) H
slope = 0 2 4
Mo
d Mo
de ⎦
1 1 <0 IV
to
8 4
Log Pump time
MODE I : positive slope (1/8-1/4) Æ Confined height, unrestricted extension

MODE II : slope ~ 0 Æ extension with accelerated height growth
MODE III : slope ~ 1 Æ restricted growth
MODE IV : slope < 0 Æ unstable / uncontrolled height growth
L
MODE I: positive slope (1/8-1/4)

V(x)
Æ PKN model based, confined height, unrestricted extension W(0, t)

W(x, t)
Æ fluid loss is linear flow-dominated, flow rate (q) and viscosity H
(μ) are assumed to be constant

Æ coincides with the PKN growth model
If the fluid is assumed to Pnet ∝ t e → high fluid loss : e = 1 /(4n + 4)

follow the Power Law (τ = K γn): → low fluid loss : e = 1 /(2n + 3)
→ high fluid loss, Newtonian, n = 1 : e = 1 / 8

→ low fluid loss, Newtonian, n = 1 : e = 1 / 5
→ high fluid loss, non − Newtonian, n = 0.5 : e = 1 / 6
→ low fluid loss, non − Newtonian, n = 0.5 : e = 1 / 4

1/ 4
⎡ E μqL ⎤ Less important for
Pnet ≈ ⎢ + Ptip ⎥ the case of low E
MODE II: positive slope ~ 0 ⎣ (1 − ν ) H
2 4
⎦
rocks
Æ stable height growth

Æ increased fluid loss (probably due to the interception of natural fractures),
higher risk of screen-out
Æ may be indication of confined height with net pressure behavior dominated
by tip effects (soft, low modulus formations)
σ1 P net
σ5
H0 Mode II
σ3
Mode IV
σ5
Mode II
Mode I
Mode I Mode IV
σ7
H /Ho
MODE III: positive slope ~ 1

Æ flow restriction in the fracture (unit slope indicates storage of fluid,
i.e. fracture “ballooning”)
Æ may be caused by pad depletion with proppant at the fracture tip,
slurry dehydration, excessive height growth, or proppant fallout (i.e. blockage)
σ4
Screenout created by late height growth !!!
σ3
q E (Δp / Δt )
σ1
Rpinch R pinch = 1.8 (Smith, 2003)
(1 −ν 2 ) H 2
σ2
MODE IV: negative slope (< 0)

Æ near wellbore height growth
Æ “run-away” fractures
Æ slope is a function of the rate of unstable growth
Æ in the case of complete lack of height containment, slope will be
close to -1/8 (Smith, 2003)
σ1
Fracture growing vertically instead of
extending laterally
σ5
σ3

Example from the field (data taken from Nolte & Smith ,1981):
4000
4000
Case
3500 CaseAA
3500
3000
3000
2500
Pressure (psi)
2500
Pressure (psi)
Case
2000
2000 CaseBB
1500
1500
Case
CaseCC
1000
1000
500
500
0
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Time (min)
Time (min)

Using Nolte & Smith plot:
Case
CaseAA
ΙΙΙ
ΙΙ
Ι ΙΙΙ Case
CaseBB
Ι
Case
CaseCC
Ι ΙΙ ΙV

Outline
¾ Background
and propagation
geometry

Special cases in hydraulic
fracturing
Hydraulic fracturing of high permeability rocks

- Extremely high values of leak-off
- 3D fluid loss rather than Carter’s fluid loss (1D)
- Possibility of having both tensile and shear failure
Hydraulic fracturing in deviated wells
- Normal and shear stress created by well deviation
- Possibility of fracture “turning” (i.e. non-planar fractures)
- Proppant transport problems due to the presence of “turns”
Æ higher screen-out risk !!!
Cuttings injection
- Batch process
- Possibility of creating several fractures in the same horizon
- Environmental concerns due to fracture height growth

Hydraulic fracture in high
permeability rocks
Objectives:
- To bypass damaged formation zones (recovering

productivity)
- To reduce the possibility of sanding and solids

production (by reducing fluid pressure gradients)
Characteristics:
- High leak-off (i.e. low efficiency) fractures
- Fractures tend to be a lot shorter and wider than in

conventional fracturing

permeability rocks…… (continued)
The area of flow in a fracpack is about two orders of magnitude larger than the
area of flow in a gravel pack
9.5
Gravel pack: Ax = 2π r h = 2π h = 4.97 h
12
Frac & pack:
Ax = 4 L f h = 4 * 50h = 200h
Æ Therefore, the fluid velocity in a gravel pack is about two orders of

magnitude higher than in the case of fracpacks (i.e. considerably larger drag
forces in gravel packs)
Æ Possibility of using larger proppants in fracpacks due to lower sanding risk
(i.e. potential for more production)
permeability rocks…..(continued)
Equivalent wellbore radius (rw eq) Æ producing from a stimulated well is like
producing from an effectively larger un-stimulated well
Cf K f wf
C fD = =
K Xf K Xf
where K : Reservoir permeability

Kf : fracture permeability
wf : fracture width
Xf: fracture half-length
The values of CfD for high

permeability fracturing tend to be <
0.5
permeability rocks……(continued)
Cf k f wf
rw eq = 0.28 =
k k
In order to increase rw eqÆ kf or wf may be increased
Æ Achieving larger fracture width may be difficult as the pressure

demands rise and operational risk increases. Besides, theoretical studies
have shown that fracture width is relatively insensitive to controllable job
variables such as pump rate and viscosity (Nolte, 1979)
Æ Increasing fracture permeability is easily accomplished by

augmenting the size and concentration of the proppant being pumped

Hydraulic fracturing in deviated
wells
Borehole deviation creates a completely different picture
Æ STRESS field around the well and far-field stress are NOT EQUAL
Æ FRACTURE ORIENTATION near to and far from the borehole are

likely to be DIFFERENT (i.e. “turning” fractures)
Æ Proppant transport issues (fluid can “turn” easily, but proppant

cannot !), HIGHER RISK OF SCREEN-OUT

wells…..(continued)
It is important to notice that the fracture initiation plane may be inclined with respect
to the borehole axis … and also that, after the fracture grows away from the wellbore, it
will turn to follow the in-situ stress field !!!
It has been observed that the degree of “fracture turning”
(hence, of near wellbore friction) is less severe under the
following conditions (Emanuele et al., 1998):
Low natural fracture density and competent cement bonding
(less leak-off issues)
Overbalanced or extreme overbalanced perforating
(probable hydrofrac during perforation)
Fracture initiated by pumping the fracturing fluid at very
high rate (Weijers and de Pater, 1994), i.e. higher values of Pnet
3 where τ C = characteristic time for fracture propagation
⎛ E ⎞ μ E = plane strain Young ' s modulus
τ C = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ μ = fracturing fluid viscosity
⎝ Pnet ⎠ E Pnet = net pressure = Pw − σ c
Shorter propagation time (i.e. faster failure) creates the potential for creating a
“smooth” turning fracture (i.e. better wellbore-fracture hydraulic connectivity)
wells…..(continued)
z’ Depending upon the azimuth (i.e. orientation with
θ
respect to North) of the wellbore, the breakdown pressure
γ
y’
may vary as follows (Yew and Li, 1988):
x’
Fracture
θ
60 90 16
Fracture orientation , γ (deg)
Breakdown pressure , Pb (Ksi)

Fracture position , θ (deg)
40 12
For α = 0º
60
Pb Pb
(North) and a
given in-situ 20 8
The
Thebreakdown
breakdownpressure
pressuremay
may
30 γ
stress field increase/decrease
increase/decreasedepending
dependingupon
upon
0 θ γ the
theorientation
orientation(α)
(α)and
andinclination
inclination(β)
(β)
of the wellbore where the fracture is
10 40 70 90
Well inclination, β (deg) of the wellbore where the fracture is
initiated
initiated
60 90 16
Fracture orientation , γ (deg)
Breakdown pressure , Pb (Ksi)

Fracture position , θ (deg)
For α = 45º θ
40 60 12
(North-East) Pb
and a given
γ
in-situ stress 20
30
8
field
0
10 40 70 90
Well inclination, β (deg)

Cuttings Injection
Batch injection of slurry (water + liquid waste + solid waste) into

selected formations (sandstones / shales / carbonates)
Sources of solid waste Æ drill cuttings, contaminated soil
Sources of liquid waste Æ drilling mud, tank bottoms, produced
water, human activity
Cuttings injection started in the early 1980’s with small annulus
volume injection in the GOM. It was later implemented in the
North Sea, Alaska and elsewhere.
Two main issues:

- Where does the waste go ?
- How much waste can we safely dispose of?

Cuttings Injection … (continued)
Similar to hydraulic fracturing stimulation,
σc
Upper Bounding Layer
However …
Pay
Zone
Lower Bounding Layer

Hydraulic fracturing Cuttings / Waste injection

Stimulation
Volume (Bbls) 1,000 – 5,000 30,000 - Millions
Injection rate (BPM) 10- 50 0.5 – 20
Duration Min- Hours Weeks – Years
Fluid Type Polymeric gel Slurry
Viscosity (cP) 20-200 2-20
Solids type Proppant (sand/ceramics) Cuttings
Solids size(mesh) 20/40 D90 < 300 microns
Concentration (% Vol) 10-30 Normally, < 15
But most importantly, INJECTION is a batch process while

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING is continuous !!!
The intermittent nature of waste injection tends to create several

fracture rather than a single planar crack (as is the case of
hydraulic fracturing).

Where does the injected waste go?
Competent / low permeability formations:

Multiple fractures (disposal
domain concept), roughly
perpendicular to the
σ3 direction of the minimum
in-situ stress
Unconsolidated / high permeability formations:
A “disaggregated” zone around

the main fractures, the
effect of in-situ stress is
σ3 less evident Æ Much
higher storage capacity

Microseismic mapping of fractures induced during waste injection (Moschovidis et
al., 2000) Æ Wilcox sand (tight sand)

Creation of multiple fractures Æ much lesser fracture height growth, and much
higher volume can be safely disposed (Figure from Moschovidis et al., 2000)
Originally, it was thought

that the waste injection
process should form a
SINGLE fracture (red circle).
However, tiltmeter mapping

proved the existence of
several fractures in the
same rock interval (black
ellipses)
As a result, more waste

material may be disposed of in
the same interval (through a
set of small fractures) than it
was originally anticipated !!!

NOTE: A tiltmeter is a tool used to monitor changes in the inclination of a

structure; in this case, the earth surface or a monitoring well.
Figure taken from Wolhart et al.

(2001) Æ Measurements on a well
tiltmeter as function of the hydraulic
fracture inclination (α)
Microseismic mapping is based on the fact that when rock fails it emits “noise”
that may be measured and located in space by geophones. Thus, allowing to
pinpoint the tip location over time during a hydraulic fracturing job.

Injection in unconsolidated formations Æ injection pressure remains almost
unchanged throughout the disposal process (figure from Dusseault et al., 1998)
cycle

Injection in competent, low permeability rocks Æ injection pressure tends to change
throughout the disposal process (Figure from Moschovidis et al., 2000)

Cuttings Injection … (summary)
¾ Cuttings injection is a much larger scale process than hydraulic fracturing

(years vs. hours, millions of barrels vs. thousands of gallons …)
¾ The cyclic nature of the cuttings injection process tends to create MORE
THAN ONE MACRO-SCALE FRACTURE. Thus, augmenting the amount of
waste than may disposed of in a given rock interval
¾ Injection of waste into low-permeability rock is a more difficult (hence

more risky) operation, as the injection pressure tends to increase over time.
This creates the possibility of extending the fracture vertically Æ undesirable
effect that could jeopardize the waste containment
¾ The geometry and location of the fracture(s) may be monitored by using

tiltmeters, microseismic mapping and tracers

Outline
¾ Background
and propagation
geometry

Reservoir Connectivity
σ h min σ1
σ H max
Fracture
Wellbore
σ3
σ2
σ1 σ3
σ 2
σ2
σ 3 σ1
Hydraulic fractures parallel to the direction of

maximum permeability - low well deliverability
kh
σh kH
Vertical Well
σH
Vertical Well
σ H kh kH
σh
Hydraulic fractures perpendicular to the direction
of maximum permeability - high well deliverability
Horizontal well drilled perpendicular to the direction of

maximum permeability - high well deliverability
kh
σh kH
σH
σ H kh kH
σh
Horizontal well with multiple transverse
hydraulic fractures - high well deliverability

Waterflood/EOR Application - Sweep Efficiency
Producing wells drilled perpendicular to fracture direction - good areal

sweep efficiency
σh
σH
producer injector
Waterflood/EOR Application - Sweep Efficiency
Producing wells drilled parallel to fracture direction - poor areal sweep
efficiency
σh
σH
producer injector
Low Permeability Reservoir – Optimum Infill Drilling Locations
Well spacing ≈ fracture length →

fracture orientation becomes critical
Good Drainage Incomplete Drainage

Reservoir Geomechanics
Outline
Î Critically stressed fractures/faults

z Reservoir compaction
z Pore volume compressibility
z Surface subsidence

E&P Business Drivers
z Well placement
¾ hydraulically conductive fractures
(reservoir objective)
¾ fault sealing/re-activation
(exploration/development objective)
¾ wellbore stability considerations
(drilling objective)

Critically Stressed Fractures
z Critically stressed fracture
analysis enables the
identification of fractures
which are optimally aligned
to fail in the present day
stress regime, and hence
are most likely to be
conduits to fluid flow.
z Several studies have
demonstrated that fluid flow
within fractured rocks
occurs largely through
critically stressed fractures
(e.g. Barton et al, 1998;
Hickman, 1998).
z That a fracture is critically
stressed does not
necessarily mean that it is Vung Tau headland – FRACTURE DENSITY
open and permeable
(although this is likely).
z Critically stressed fracture analysis consists of the
following activities:
– Natural fracture identification and characterization.
– The far-field in-situ stress tensor is projected onto
the fracture plane to give the normal and shear
stresses acting on the plane.
– These stresses are then plotted on a normalized
Mohr-Coulomb diagram and compared to the fracture
failure line defined by the friction coefficient of faults
and fractures in the rock.
– Finally, fractures are classified as critically stressed
if the ratio of shear to normal stress exceeds the
shear failure line.

CSFA Workflows
Far field stress Poroelastic properties Natural Fracture

tensor analysis & friction coefficient Characterization
r
σn
σ ij
Fracture
Critically Stressed v plane

τ
Fracture Analysis n̂
Drilling trajectory recommendations

Fracture reactivation, pressure maintenance

A Natural Fracture characterization

B
α (dip angle & dip azimuth)
+
e
A B
rik
In-situ stress tensor

St
Dip direction
(magnitude & direction)
⎡σ xx τ xy τ xz ⎤ ⎡σ H 0 0⎤
⎢ ⎥
σ = ⎢τ xy σ yy τ yz ⎥ = ⎢⎢ 0 σh 0 ⎥⎥
⎣ ⎦ xyz ⎢⎣ 0 0

In-situ Stress Regimes
In-situ
σv
σv > σH > σ h σ h min

σ H max
σv
σH > σv > σ h σ H max

σ h min
σv
σH > σ h > σ v σH
σ h min

Stress Vector Projection into a
Fracture Plane
Up
Upper hemisphere
A n̂
B
x
North
α West East
South
e
A B
rik
St
Dip direction
Down
σ1 σ3 σn
r North
σ
σ2 σ2 v
τ 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
West Dip East

n̂ x Strike
σ3
Upper hemisphere
σ1 (Plan view)
Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service South
Normal & Shear Stresses on a
Plane
¾ Assume that XYZ coordinate system Z
corresponds to the far-field stress directions,
i.e., principal axes, and l, m, n are the C
direction cosines of normal OP (define by the (l,m,n)
dip and dip direction).
¾ The normal stress on the plane: P
B
O Y
σ =l σ +m σ +n σ 2 2
1
2 2
2
2 2
3
¾ The shear stress on the plane:

A
τ 2 = (σ 1 − σ 2 )2 l 2 m 2 + (σ 2 − σ 3 )2 m 2 n 2 + (σ 3 − σ 1 )2 n 2l 2 X

z 3D Mohr Circle plot

shows resolved
stresses on fractures
z Fractures above failure
envelope may be more
conductive to flow τ
σv
criticallystressed
critically stressedfractures
fracturesabove
above
frictionalfailure
frictional failureenvelope
envelope
stablefractures
stable fractures
belowfrictional
below frictional
failureenvelope
failure envelope
σ3 σ2 σ1
σv σv σv

(normal fault stress regime)
σv>σH,max>σh,min
σH,max
z In-situ stress
tensor
characterization
σH,max z Natural fracture
identification
r
σn
σ ij Fracture
v plane
τ
n̂
σh,min σH,max σv

(strike-slip and reverse fault stress regimes)
(strike-slip
σH,max>σv>σh,min σH,max>σh,min>σv

Exploiting Permeable Fractures
35
RD-8X
R D -8 x
Mud Loss, bbl/hr
M u d L o ss , b b l/h r
30 μ = 1.2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
3600
μ = 0.6
25
Shear Stress, MPa
20
3650
15
M u d L o ss M in _ D is c
3700
10
M in o r W id e
W id e -D is c A lte re d
5 D IH F V uggy
MD, m
3750
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Normal Stress, MPa
R D -1X : P LT lo g
3800
13000
12000
11000
10000
3850
9000
8000
7000
bbl/d
6000
5000
3900
4000
0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1
3000 D is co n tin u ity R e la tiv e A p e r tu r e
2000
1000
0
3000 3020 3040 3060 3080 3100 3120 3140 3160 3180 3200 3220 3240 3260 3280 3300 3320 3340 3360 3380 3400
M D (m .BRT )

(drilling application)
Critically stressed
fractures
Preferred horizontal well

trajectory is E-W
Fractures not under a

critically stress state
σHmax direction N - S
(well completion application)
Stratigraphy
Open-hole logs
Fracture orientation from core
Rose-diagrams of cemented
(red) and partially-cemented
(cyan)/non-cemented (blue)
Location of fractures
the CSF in
the Lithology Fracture density of all fractures
column
Rose-diagrams of critically
stressed fractures
Fracture density of critically

stressed fractures
Stress model

““Critically-Stressed”
Critically-Stressed” Faults
z Fault sealing capacity – fault τ − μ ( S n − Pp ) ≥ 0
reactivation during rearranging gives:
injection/production τ
Critical pore pressure – P critical
= Sn −
z
μ
p
estimate the ambient

(excess/reduction) pore
pressure a fault can maintain
before slipping water depth
Shear Stress
f ailu re line
earthquakes
cri ti cally s tress ed fract ure
n on -critically str essed fr actur e

σ 3’ σ1 ’ Norm al Stress

““Critically-Stressed”
Critically-Stressed” Faults
(normal fault stress regime)
Mohr diagram showing the effects of pore pressure/stress coupling during

pore pressure depletion in a normal fault stress regime.
A decreasing minimum horizontal stress leads to higher differential stress.
Streit and Hillis (2002) – SPE 78226
Pore Pressure/Stress Coupling
ΔS h
b=
ΔPf
b ~ 0.5 - 0.8

Optimally vs. Non -Optimally
Non-Optimally
Oriented Faults
Mohr diagram Mohr diagram Mohr diagram

showing the state showing the state of showing the
of stress for the stress for the state of stress
reactivation of reactivation of for the
cohesionless fault cohesionless fault at reactivation of a
at an optimum an non-optimum cemented fault
fault angle (θ=45o fault angle (θ>45o). with cohesive
-0.5tan-1μ) . strength.
Critical Pore Pressure to cause
Compressional Shear Failure
Normal fault stress regime
Pf − 2C + (S v − S h )(1 − μ tan θ )sin 2θ ( S v − S h )

= 1− −
Sv Sv 2μ Sv
Defining: C = fault cohesive strength

μ = coefficient of friction
Pf = Pfo − ΔPf θ = fault angle
Pfo = initial pore pressure
S h = S ho − ΔS h S ho = initial minimum horizontal stress
Sv = overburden stress

Compressional Shear Failure
Normal fault stress regime
2C − 2 μPfo + μS ho + S ho sin 2θ
Pf = Pfo −
− 2μ + bμ + b sin 2θ + bμ cos 2θ
μS ho cos 2θ − S v sin 2θ + μS v 2(sin θ ) 2
+
− 2μ + bμ + b sin 2θ + bμ cos 2θ

Fault Reactivation
Ekofisk Field
μ = 0.6
C = 0 (cohesionless) Streit and Hillis (2002) – SPE 78226

Fault Reactivation, f(μ)
f(μ)
Ekofisk Field

Summary - CSF
z Accurate characterizations of in-situ stresses
and natural fractures/faults are critical to the
understanding of fractured reservoir
performance and fault reactivation potential.
z Quantifications of critically-stressed fractures
provide an ‘engineered’ approach to fractured
reservoirs’ exploration and exploitation
strategies.
z Predicting induced reservoir and fault failure
(re-activation) is an essential requirement for
the long term planning of hydrocarbon field
depletion strategies.

Outline
z Critically stressed fractures/faults

Î Reservoir compaction

Reservoir Compaction
What is Reservoir Compaction?

) Initially, pore fluids and grains support the
overburden. When produced, load is transferred to the
grains and stress on rock grains (“effective stress”)
increases. At low effective stress levels, elastic
deformation take place while at higher effective
stresses, grains undergo crushing resulting in
irreversible compaction of reservoir layers.
) The phenomenon is called “pore collapse”.

Ice tea
Rigid body movement, grain slippage, rotation and

displacement, grain cracking and crushing, pore
volume reduction
Reservoir Compaction &
Subsidence
Surface
Subsidence
Overburden
• Pore pressure decline
• Effective stress increase
• Reservoir compaction
Reservoir
Sideburden
• Overburden load transfer
Sideburden
• Subsidence
Underburden

Reservoir Compaction –
Arching Effect
figure from SPE 17852
• Overburden load may not transfer completely (SPE

17852)
• Leading to reduction in load in the middle
• Called “arching effect”
• Especially in rigid (or less compliant) formations
• Leading to smaller compaction and subsidence in the
middle than at the flanks
Pore Pressure Depletion Effects
overburden stress
fluid-filled
pores grains
Total Stress = Pore Pressure + Effective Stress Carried by the Grains
σ = p + σ’
overburden stress
fluid-filled
pores
grains

Depletion = ΔP
σ = P + σ’
Overburden stress
subsidence
compaction
σ = p + σ’
Compaction
At Low Effective Stress Levels:
• “Elastic region”
Pore Pressure Decrease
• Gradual porosity decrease
• Low compressibility
Elastic or • Small displacements
Porosity Decrease
reversible • Mostly reversible

At High Effective Stress Levels:
• “Pore collapse” region
• Beyond certain “threshold stress”
• Rapid porosity decrease
• Increased compressibility
Post-pore • Large displacements
Pore Pore collapse
collapse collapse • Irreversible or permanent
stress
After Pore Collapse:
Effective Stress Increase • “Post-pore collapse” region
• Material hardening
• Decreasing compressibility
Pore Collapse Behavior
pore
• Compressibility is
Porosity Decrease
collapse
defined as change in
volume for a given
change in pressure
• Sharp increase in
Compressibility Increase
compressibility
• Large displacements
• Irreversible or
permanent
Effective Stress Increase
Compaction leads to:

• Reduction in permeability (pore throat closure)
• Increase in permeability due to fracturing/shearing
• Provides compaction drive energy
• Reduction in ultimate recovery
• Casing collapse/shear, esp. along faults
• Could trigger sand production
• Surface subsidence/Platform settlement
• Costly remedial measures
• Could also lead to well abandonment

Case Histories (Compaction &
Subsidence)
) Ekofisk field (North Sea) - Johnson et al., 1989
Total subsidence (Feb. 1989) ~ 14.4 ft
Expected subsidence (in 2011) -- 20 ft
) Lagunillas Oil Field (Venezuela) – v.d. Knaap & v.d. Vlis, 1967
Coast of Lake Maracaibo, first produced 1926
Parts of shoreline permanently flooded by lake water (1929)
27 mi. concrete protection walls & dikes built to protect local population & installations
Subsidence ~10 ft. by 1960 and 13.5 ft by 1976
) Wilmington Oil Field (California) - Allen & Mayuga, 1970

Oil field was discovered in 1932, production started 1941-42
Cumulative subsidence reached more than 29.5 ft. in 1968
Subsidence effectively stopped by water injection
) Offshore Sarawak (Malaysia) - van Ditzhuijzen & de Waal, 1984

Central Luconia gas fields, depletion caused pore collapse in limestones and dolomites
Cumulative subsidence calculated at 8 to 20ft, based on location

Reservoir Compaction Calculation
Porosity Decrease
Elastic
Plastic (Pore collapse) Effective Stress
) Elastic compaction calculated using elastic equations for

compressibility (bulk, grain and pore volume) - reversible
) Pore collapse compaction is more severe and larger compared
to elastic – e.g., using trendline method - irreversible

Reservoir Compaction Calculation
compressibility = change in volume/orig. volume = change in height/orig. height

pressure change (depletion) pressure change (depletion)
Δh / h
C pp ( u ) = (ΔP=pore pressure change)
ΔP
Δh = compaction
h
Δ h = C pp ( u ) * Δ P * h
Pore Collapse Compaction
Trendline behavior (Smits et al., 1988):
Trendline
• Divide reservoir into layers based on
Porosity Decrease
porosity and rock type
• Establish a “trend line” for each of the

formation rock types through lab tests
• Estimate the expected drawdown

(depletion)
• Determine the increase in effective stress
• Estimate the change in porosity for the

change in effective stress
• Compaction in each layer is given by:

Pore Collapse Compaction
Trendline
Porosity Decrease
Initial
porosity, φi (φ i − φ f )
Δh i = h i
(100 − φ f )
n
Total = ∑ Δ h i
i =1
Final
porosity, φf
Initial eff. Collapse Final eff.

stress stress stress

Total Compaction
Total Compaction = Elastic Compaction (calculated from

compressibility)
+
Pore Collapse Compaction (using trendline method)

Outline

Î Pore volume compressibility

Why are Compressibility
Measurements Important?
z Reserve estimation
z Reservoir pressure maintenance
z Reservoir drive assessment
z Production forecasting & history matching
z Reservoir compaction & subsidence predictions
z Permeability change prediction

Reservoir Compaction –
Reservoir Stress Conditions
σa
• Hydrostatic stress – isotropic state of stress
does not replicate field boundary conditions;
not realistic stress path; however, easiest to σc σ c = σa
simulate in the laboratory σa
• Triaxial stress – anisotropic state of stress is
more realistic but still does not replicate σa
field boundary conditions; relatively easy to σc σc
simulate in the laboratory
σa
• Uniaxial strain - reservoir fluid production is
associated with pore pressure reduction,
σa
constant overburden and zero lateral εc = 0
deformation; most realistic stress path;
however, difficult to perform in the
laboratory
σa www.bakeratlasdirect.com
Elastic Compressibilities
z Bulk compressibility, Cb
z Pore volume compressibility, Cp
z Grain compressibility, Cg
Obtained from elastic moduli:

Young’s modulus (E) and Poisson’s ratio (ν)
Need to differentiate between:
• hydrostatic (commonly performed in lab), and
• uniaxial (more representative of field conditions)
As well as between:
• changing confining pressure and
• changing pore pressure
Compressibility – Definitions
− 1 ⎛ ∂Vb ⎞ 1 ⎛ ∂Vb ⎞
C bc = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ C bp = ⎜ ⎟ (bulk)
Vb ⎝ ∂Pc ⎠ p Vb ⎜ ∂P ⎟
p = cons tan t ⎝ p ⎠ Pc=cons tan t
− 1 ⎛ ∂Vp ⎞ 1 ⎛ ∂Vp ⎞
C pc = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ C pp = ⎜ ⎟ (pore)
Vp ⎝ ∂Pc ⎠ p Vp ⎜ ∂P ⎟
p = cons tan t ⎝ p ⎠ Pc=cons tan t
⎡ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ∂ V ⎞ ⎤
⎢ − 1 ∂ V 1 ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ (grain)
C gc = C gp = Cg = ⎜ b
⎟ =
p
⎢ Vb ⎜⎝ ∂Pc ⎟⎠ p Vp ⎜⎝ ∂Pp ⎟⎠ ⎥
⎣ Pc ⎦
p
[Δ ( Pc − Pp ) = 0 ]
( from Zimmerman, 1991)

Bulk Compressibility, Cb
z Under changing pore pressure, Cbp

z Under changing confining pressure, Cbc
We need Cbp – replicates field conditions
Most labs obtain Cbc
σc
PP
Note:
Cxy means: x compressibility under changing y
x: b (bulk), p (pore) or g (grain)
y: p (pore pressure), c (confining pressure)

Pore Volume Compressibility, Cp
z Under changing pore pressure, Cpp
z Under changing confining pressure, Cpc
We need Cpp– replicates field conditions
Most labs obtain Cpc
Also need to convert Cpp (hydrostatic/triaxial) to Cpp(u)

(uniaxial)
Relationships are available for these conversions.

Compressibility Relationships
C bc − C gc
C bp = C bc − C gc C pc =
φ
C bc − (1 + φ )C gc
C pp = (hydrostatic)
φ
Bulk
C pp (1 + ν )
C pp ( u ) = (uniaxial strain)
Grain 3(1 − ν )
Pore (Zimmerman, 1991)
Grain Compressibility, Cg
z Under changing pore pressure, Cgp
z Under changing confining pressure, Cgc
z But, Cgp = Cgc→ very small
Pc
Obtained using unjacketed sample

or jacketed sample, ensuring
Pore pressure = confining pressure Pc
Only grains deform, measuring Cg
Cg for quartz = 1.6*10-5 psi-1

Compressibility Measurement
z Direct measurement (lab-based)

– Time consuming
– Expensive
– Difficult to get cores
– Core damage and handling, etc.
– Limited labs equipped for this
– Limited personnel capabilities
z In-Direct measurement (log-based)

– Time saving
– Economic
– Requires logs (usually available)
– Fairly accurate
– As a function of depletion and stress changes

z Direct measurement (lab-based)
– Hydrostatic Test (easy to perform, not preferred for

isotropic stresses)
– Triaxial Test (anisotropic stress conditions, easy to

perform, preferred)
– Uniaxial Strain (most preferred, simulates field

conditions, but most difficult to perform)
– As a compromise, compressibilities obtained using

Triaxial Test and converted into uniaxial equivalent

Hydrostatic Test
σ Radial Axial Volumetric
δ1 1200
Confining Pressure (psi)

1000
l σ 800
600
400
200
d δ3/2 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Strain
δ1
ε1 = εv = ε1 + 2* ε3
l
δ3 K = σ C = 1
ε3 = b
d εv K
Triaxial Test
σ1 Radial Axial
16000
14000
δ1
Axial Stress (psi)

12000
10000
8000
6000
l 4000
2000
0
-0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
Strain
d δ3/2
σ1 ε3
E= ν=−
ε1 ε1
E 1
K= Cb =
3(1− 2ν) K
Uniaxial Strain Test
σ1
Radial Axial
δ1 16000
14000
A x ia l S t re s s ( p s i)
12000
σ3 l
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
d δ3 = 0 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012

Strain
σ1 1
M= Cu = < Cb
ε1 M
(1 + ν) Cb
Cu =
(1 − ν) 3
Intelligent Triaxial Compression
— σc
— Pp A Pre-seating - secure jacket
— σa
Stress
B Grain compressibility
E
F C Bulk modulus/compressibility
G
D Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio
H
E Compressive strength
B C D
F Post-failure strain softening
A G Residual strength
H Unloading
Time

Intelligent Compaction/Drawdown
Test design
E A Pre-seating - secure jacket

F
Stress
D G B Skempton’s constant B
C H
— σc C Grain compressibility Cg
B
— Pp D Bulk modulus K, bulk
A — σa
compressibility Cb
E Young’s modulus E,
Poisson’s ratio ν
Strain
— εa F Creep/equilibration
— εr G Uniaxial strain drawdown,
compaction, grain crashing,
pore collapse
H Unloading
Time

Stress Loading History - Triaxial Compression at
Uniaxial Strain Condition with Pore Pressure Depletion
8000
Total Axial
7000
6000 Effective Axial
5000 Confining
4000
3000
2000 Pore
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (hour)

Compressibility Determinations
from Volumetric Strain - Stress Plot
0.016
0.014
0.012 Confining
y = -3.5378E-07x + 1.3746E-02
2
R = 9.9436E-01
0.01 Axial Compaction Coefficient
= 3.538 E-7 psi-1 Pore
Pore Volume Compressibility y = 2.432E-06x - 1.524E-03
0.008 w/ Initial Porosity = 23.0% 2
R = 9.957E-01
-1
= 1.447 E-6 psi Bulk Compressibility
-1
= 2.432 E-6 psi
0.006 α = 0.96
0.004 y = 5.264E-06x - 1.404E-02

2
R = 9.992E-01
y = 9.168E-08x + 3.838E-03 Initial Bulk Compressibility
0.002 2
R = 9.306E-01 5.264 E-6 psi
-1
-1 α = 0.98
Grain Compressibility = 9.168 E-8 psi
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Stress, psi

– Log-based Approach
Pore volume compressibility using LMP:
Considers reservoir stress changes with depletion (pressure-

dependent PVC)
Incorporates stress condition constraints that ensure

deformations are within elastic bounds
Considers stress anisotropy effects (hydrostatic vs. triaxial)
Takes log input, commonly available
Provides continuous profile with depth
Cost-effective, time-saving (particularly when core is n.a.)

Log Inputs σa Produce

Stress-
Δtc, Δts, Porosity, Lithology Strain Curves
σr
Produces
Virtual
Core Sample σa
Applying
Virtual
Stresses εr εa
to the “Core
Sample”

Poisson’s Ratio, Compressibilities
Log Derived Compressibility – Simulated
Hydrostatic Compression
z Process LMP
z Determine static bulk modulus (HC)
z Calculate bulk compressibility
z Assume grain compressibility (Cgc) from table
z Calculate pore volume compressibility (PVC)
∂σ c
Kb =
∂ε v C bc − (1 + φ )C gc
C pp =
1 φ
C bc =
Kb
Log Derived Compressibility –
Elastic Moduli
z Process LMP - static elastic moduli

z Calculate bulk modulus
z Calculate bulk compressibility
z Assume grain compressibility (Cgc) from table
z Calculate pore volume compressibility (PVC)
E
Kb =
3(1 − 2ν )
C bc − (1 + φ )C gc
1 C pp =
C bc = φ
Kb

Uniaxial Strain Condition
z Reservoir fluid production is associated with pore
pressure reduction, constant overburden and zero
lateral deformation (constrained by earth crust)
z Convert hydrostatic pore volume compressibility [Cpp]

into uniaxial strain ‘equivalent’ pore volume
compressibility [Cpp(u)], using:
C pp (1 + ν )
C pp ( u ) =
3(1 − ν )

PV Comparison – LMP vs. Lab
L M P ( P P = 1 2 0 0 0 p s i)
Comparison of L M P ( P P = 4 0 0 0 p s i)
LMP vs. lab-

L a b I D # 5 - 1 ( 1 2 8 0 0 - 1 0 9 9 0 p s i)
L a b ID # 5 -1 (4 7 9 0 -2 8 0 5 )
derived uniaxial L a b I D # 1 0 - 3 ( 1 2 8 0 0 - 1 0 6 2 5 p s i)
L a b I D # 1 0 - 3 ( 6 4 2 0 - 4 8 2 0 p s i)
pore volume
TVDRKB, ft
L a b I D # 1 8 - 5 ( 1 2 8 0 0 - 1 0 8 0 5 p s i)
compressibility, L a b I D # 1 8 - 5 ( 6 6 0 0 - 5 0 0 0 p s i)
with depth, for

two effective
stress
conditions
1 2 3 4 5 6
-6 -1
E ffe c tiv e P o r e C o m p r e s s ib ility x 1 0 psi

(Elastic)
Reservoir Depletion Analysis
– Changes in in-situ stresses, caused by reservoir pressure
depletion, can result in shear failure of the formation
– Shear failure causes weakly cemented rock to
disaggregate, leading to low values of cohesive strength
and critical drawdown pressure
– For reservoir management and workover planning
purposes, it is, therefore, important to know the onset of
formation shear failure associated with reservoir
depletion
– Reservoir stress path analysis is required

(Elastic)
z Stress Path – under uniaxial strain condition:
σ = σ + K o (σ − σ )
Δσ h' νt
Ko = = ' ' ' '
Δσ v 1 −ν t
' h ho v vo
z Reservoir Failure – Mohr-Coulomb

failure criterion
Ko is the stress path coefficient,
τ = S o + μσ = S o + σ tan φ or
σ ho' andσ zo' are the effective φ
horizontal and vertical stresses, σ = UCS + σ tan ( + 2 )
'
1
'
3
2 π
4
respectively, at the previous
depletion stage and νt is the
tangential Poisson’s ratio.

Uniaxial Strain PVC Variations with
Depletions (Elastic)
Two general approaches:
z Constant stress path coefficient

z Stress path coefficient as a
function of effective horizontal and
vertical stresses

Constant Stress Path Coefficient
1. Run LMP at initial reservoir confining condition.
2. Calculate pore volume compressibility, Cpp, at
triaxial stress condition (@ 50% peak stress) and
convert to uniaxial strain equivalent, Cpp(u).
3. At next pore pressure level, calculate the new
horizontal stress using a constant stress path
coefficient, Ko. Run LMP at the new confining
stress condition.
4. Repeat step 2.
5. Continue step 3 until reservoir failure
Reference: SPE 95545 – Log-Based Pore Volume Compressibility Prediction –
A Deepwater GoM Case Study (2005)

Constant Stress Path Coefficient
*Discrepancy between lab and LMP derived PVC is probably due to different stress path
coefficients and porosity values used in the computations.
Stress Path Coefficient = f(σh’, σv’)
1. Run LMP at initial reservoir confining as well as
several other confining pressure conditions expected
to be experienced during reservoir depletion.
2. Generate tangential Poisson’s ratio and Young’s
modulus and plot these tangential elastic moduli as a
function of axial stress at different confining
pressures.
3. At initial reservoir pressure condition, calculate the
effective horizontal and vertical stresses. With these
stress conditions (confining, axial) known, interpolate
using plots generated in step 2 to obtain tangential
Poisson’s ratio and Young’s modulus.

Reference: ARMA/USRMS 05-791 - Characterizing Pore Compressibility, Reservoir Compaction and

Stress Path under Uniaxial Strain Condition for Nonlinear Elastic Rock (2005)

Stress Path under Uniaxial Strain Condition for Nonlinear Elastic Rock (2005)
4. Calculate stress path coefficient and uniaxial strain pore
volume compressibility using:
Δσ h' νt
Ko = =
Δσ v 1 −ν t
'
1 (1 + ν t )(1 − 2ν t )
C pp (u ) ≈α (neglect grain compressibility)
φEt 1 −ν t
5. At next pore pressure level, calculate the effective

vertical stress and assume an effective horizontal stress.
6. With these stress conditions, interpolate using plots
generated in step 2 to obtain tangential elastic moduli.

7. Calculate stress path coefficient and then effective
horizontal stress using:
σ = σ + K o (σ − σ
'
h
'
ho
'
v
'
vo )
8. Repeat step 6 until the effective horizontal stress
converges. Calculate stress path coefficient and
uniaxial pore volume compressibility as per step 4.
9. Repeat steps 5, 6, 7 and 8 until reservoir failure.


Stress Path under uniaxial Strain Condition for Nonlinear Elastic Rock (2005)

Comparison of PVCs assuming different stress
dependency elastic moduli

Stress Path under uniaxial Strain Condition for Nonlinear Elastic Rock (2005)

Reservoir Compaction ––Reservoir
Reservoir
Productivity Change (Elastic)
Depletion-induced porosity & permeability change
ε z −ε zo
φ = 1 − (1 − φo )e
φo and εzo are porosity and vertical strain, respectively, at the previous
depletion stage.
k = ko e [−γ ( p '
− po
'
)] p = ' σ v + 2σ h
3
− pp
ko is permeability measured at effective mean stress, po’, and γ

=0.004 MPa-1 for a 20% porosity sandstone.

Reservoir Compaction – Reservoir
Productivity Change (Elastic)
Depletion-induced porosity & permeability change
q p'
*
= 1.23 * + 0.00275 (damage/permeability criterion)
p p
2 2
⎡ p' ⎤ ⎡ q ⎤
⎢ * ⎥ + ⎢ * ⎥ =1 (cap surface)
⎣p ⎦ ⎣p ⎦
k = ko e [−γ ( p − po ) ]
' '
q p'
= 1.81 * + 0.06 (for p ' / p * ≤ 0.175)
p* p
2
q ⎡ p' ⎤ p'
= −2.073⎢ * ⎥ + 2.536 * - 0.003 (for p ' / p * ≥ 0.175)
p* ⎣p ⎦ p
1 ∂k ∂p '
− = 0.0049 + 0.0017
k o ∂q ∂q
q = σ v −σ h p * = 6.435UCS
q and p* are the deviatoric stress and critical effective
pressure for the onset of grain crushing under
hydrostatic loading, respectively. Valid for 20% porosity Reference: SPE 58717
rock.
Summary – Pore Volume
Compressibility
• We have presented a log-based method to compute

uniaxial strain pore volume compressibility, stress
path and permeability changes as a function of
reservoir pressure depletion.
• The method is valid for reservoir pressures prior to
the on-set of reservoir failure which can be
estimated using a shear failure criterion such as the
Mohr-Coulomb’s.
• Beyond shear failure, a constitutive law must be
established to describe the mechanical behavior of
rock deformation under stresses.

Outline

Î Surface subsidence

Surface Subsidence Calculations
z Rigorous Methods
– Reservoir and overburden heterogeneity
– Non-uniform pressure distributions
– Numerical methods (Finite Element, boundary
element, etc.)
– Fairly accurate, but time consuming and costly
z Approximate Methods
– *Geertsma’s (1973) nucleus of strain model
– Smits and de-Waal (1985)
– Morita et al (1989)
– Not expensive or time consuming
– Approximate, use as a guideline

z Assumptions:
– Reservoir experiences the full overburden load
(true near the center of the reservoir)
– Exceptions near flanks, arching effects,
presence of anticlines, faults, etc. are ignored
– No lateral deformation (uniaxial compaction)
– Uniform pressure distribution in the reservoir
– Rock mechanical properties are uniform
– Overburden behaves in an elastic manner
homogeneously

z Geertsma’s* nucleus of strain model (spherical)
– Consider a contracting sphere within an infinite medium

(inner sphere)
– Displacement trend in the surrounding medium will be

spherically symmetric, given by:
ro 2 u
u = uo 2 R
R uo
where
u = radial displacement at a point ro
u0 = displacement at the nucleus
r0 = radius of nucleus of strain sphere
R = radial distance from center of sphere to the point
*from Geertsma 1973

Geertsma’s Model (disk-shaped)
Cb Cb
u z (a ) = hΔ PA (ρ , η) u r (a ) = hΔ PB (ρ , η)
2 a D 2
ρ = ;η =
r r A = R ∫ J ( α R )J ( α a )e
∞
1 0
− Dα
dα
0
∞
B = R ∫ J 1 ( α R )J 1 ( α a )e − Dα dα
A 0
z
y
x ur
a (x,y,0)
D
B uz
(x’,y’,z’)
z Geertsma’s nucleus of strain model
–The nucleus of strain model does not guarantee the
uniaxial strain nature of reservoir compaction
–To overcome this, “imaging” concept is introduced,
commonly used in reservoir engineering.
surface
Zero displacement
planes (“no- flow”
boundary)
nucleus of image
strain nucleus

Solved Example
Problem: Calculate the maximum surface subsidence given
the following:
reservoir diameter = 4 km (r = 2 km)
reservoir depth (D) = 2 km
reservoir height (h) = 50 m
compressibility: 6.0*10-5 bar-1
expected compaction: 2.5′
subsidence (S)
D = 2km
compaction (C)
50m
4km
4km 4km

Solved Example
Solution: uz(a) = Cb/2 DP h A(r,h) Contribution Point Location(s) a D ρ η A (from table)
cancel Center, top of reservoir 1 0 0 0 0 1
S 0.5 * C b * ΔP * h * A s (ρ, η) A s (ρ, η) Center, surface 2 0 2 0 1.0 0.2929

= = contribution from the
C 0.5 * C b * ΔP * h * A c (ρ, η) A c (ρ, η) reservoir
Center, surface 3 4 2 2.0 1.0 0.0519 * 4
contribution from the 4
S 0.2929 + 4 * 0.0519 images
= = 0 .5
C 1.00
subsidence (S)
D = 2km 3
compaction (C)
1
50m
3 2 3
a = 4km
4km 4km 3
S= surface subsidence, C= reservoir compaction

Summary - Subsidence
Surface subsidence should be estimated and

considered in:
– Platform design
– Casing design
– Reservoir management (injection, depletion rate, etc.)
– Production life of the reservoir
– Impact on surrounding structures and environment


Geomechanics Course BAKER HUGHES 2007 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Geomechanics Course BAKER HUGHES 2007 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction to

© 2005 Baker Hughes Incorporated All rights reserved.

© 2000 Baker Hughes Incorporated All rights reserved.

 To provide a broad overview of the

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

© 2005 Baker Hughes Incorporated All rights reserved.

© 2000 Baker Hughes Incorporated All rights reserved.

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

STRESS vs. STRENGTH

A branch of engineering mechanics concerned with the response of

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

• Theoretical and applied science of the

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

Science and knowledge about the mechanical

Petroleum geomechanics enables us to predict

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

z Today’s reservoirs are more difficult to

z Geomechanics is a key enabling technology

• In 2002 All major operating companies agreed

• In 2004 Geopressure and borehole stability problems

Offshore Magazine - Dodson Jan.2004

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

Reservoir Management Waste Management

Production Enhancement Complex Geology Environments

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

© 2000 Baker Hughes Incorporated All rights reserved.

z Basic Concepts of Stress and Strain

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

Stress and Strain

♦ Strain (ε or γ): Defines the deformation of a

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

Stress (σ) Units of pressure (or force/area),

c.s. area Stress on the plane

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

• Defines the deformation of a material in a stress field.

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

• Shear Stress – parallel to the plane –

τ = Fp/A (e.g., τxy, τxz, etc.)

• Stress & Strain – vector quantities (on a single plane)

2D State of Stress σy σyy

General 3D State of Stress σyy

For the equilibrium of the body: σy

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

Other expressions for normal stress on a

σ = σxx cos2θ + σyy sin2θ + 2τxy sinθ cosθ

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

9 Basic Concepts of Stress and Strain

z Elasticity and Elastic Parameters

z Failure Strength Parameters

z Effective Stress Concept

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

Determine the directions of principal stress

Principal Stresses (2D)

σ1 = Mean Stress + Max. Shear Stress

σ2 = Mean Stress – Max. Shear Stress

Max Shear Stress: τxy

σ1 = Mean Stress + Max. Shear Stress

σ2 = Mean Stress – Max. Shear Stress

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

Efficiency….Data accuracy….People-oriented service www.bakeratlasdirect.com

To provide a broad overview of the

Young’s modulus: E = dσ1 / dε1