SPE 109842
Estimation of Formation Stresses Using Radial Variation of Three Shear Moduli—
A Case Study From a High-Pressure and High-Temperature Reservoir in a Norwegian
Continental Shelf
Bikash K. Sinha, SPE, Badarinadh Vissapragada, SPE, Anke S. Wendt, SPE, Marit Kongslien, and Hakan Eser,
Schlumberger, and Eiliv Skomedal, Lasse Renlie, and Erik Sandtorv Pedersen, Statoil
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 11–14 November 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Formation stresses and rock strength together with wellbore
and pore pressures are important inputs to failure models
whose predictions help in well planning, wellbore stability and
production. A complete characterization of formation stresses
requires estimation of the overburden, maximum and
minimum horizontal stresses together with pore pressure as a
function of depth. The overburden stress is reliably estimated
by integrating with depth the formation bulk density, and pore
pressure is directly measured in a permeable reservoir interval.
The maximum and minimum horizontal stresses can be
estimated from borehole sonic data in the presence of crossing
dipole dispersions. A new stress magnitude estimation
algorithm inverts radial variation of the three shear moduli
together with the overburden stress and pore pressure at a
given depth for the maximum and minimum horizontal stress
magnitudes and formation nonlinear constants referred to a
local reference state. The algorithm uses equations relating
differences in the dipole shear moduli at two radial positions
and corresponding differences in the principal stresses
obtained from near-wellbore stress concentrations using the
Kirsch’s equations. Radial positions in the plastically yielded
region close to the borehole surface are excluded from the
inversion algorithm.
Processing of sonic data yields crossing dipole dispersions in
three sand intervals in a development well drilled in a high
pressure (770 bars) gas condensate field operated by Statoil in
the Norwegian continental shelf. Results for both the
maximum and minimum horizontal stress magnitudes are
consistent in the three sand intervals in the Bent reservoir of
the Kvitebjorn field. Estimated minimum horizontal stress
magnitude is in good agreement with the mini-frac test
conducted at a nearby depth. The maximum horizontal stress
direction coincides with the fast-shear azimuth obtained from
the Alford rotation of cross-dipole waveforms. Horizontal
stress magnitude results have helped in refining the
mechanical earth model and in subsequent drilling of
development wells in this field.
Introduction
Formation stresses and rock strength are inputs to rock failure
models whose predictions help in well planning, wellbore
stability during drilling and maintaining a safe drawdown
pressure for a sand-free production1-3. A detailed knowledge of
formation stresses also helps us manage reservoirs that are
prone to subsidence caused by a significant reduction in pore
pressure and an associated increase in the effective stress that
exceeds the in-situ rock strength4. As we improve our
estimates of stresses from borehole measurements, it is not
uncommon to find that the regional tectonic stress model
involving large global averages is significantly different than
the local stresses around a borehole that affects the reservoir
producibility and near-wellbore stability.
The formation stress state is characterized by the magnitude
and direction of the three principal stresses. Generally, the
overburden stress yields the principal stress in the vertical
direction. The overburden stress (SV) is reliably obtained by
integrating the formation mass density from the surface to the
depth of interest. Therefore, estimating the other two principal
stresses (SHmax and Shmin) in the horizontal plane is the
remaining task necessary to fully characterize the formation
stress state.
Existing stress magnitude estimation techniques are based on
analyzing wellbore failures in the form of tensile fractures or
compressive-shear failure resulting in borehole breakouts that
require estimate of in-situ rock strength1,2,5. The minimum
horizontal stress is reliably known at depths where micr-
hydraulic fracturing test has been successfully performed.
Estimation of horizontal stress magnitudes using breakout
analysis requires a reliable estimate of rock strength in
addition to breakout angular spread and remains a challenging
task in the industry.
2 SPE 109842

We present a non-destructive technique for estimating the

maximum and minimum horizontal stresses based on an
acoustoelastic model that relates changes in sonic velocities to
corresponding changes in stresses in the propagating medium.
The acoustoelastic model is derived from nonlinear continuum
mechanics that accounts for changes in the mass density,
elastic stiffnesses and deformation kinematics caused by the
application of static stresses to rock and relates them to
corresponding changes in plane wave velocities6-10. These
rotationally invariant equations of motion can also be applied
to analyze wave propagation in a fluid-filled borehole in a
triaxially stressed formation. Consequently, we can calculate
changes in the borehole guided mode dispersions caused by
known changes in formation stresses using a perturbation
model. Inversion of the borehole Stoneley and cross-dipole
dispersions yields radial profiles of the three shear slownesses.
Radial profiles of the corresponding shear moduli together
Fig. 1-Schematic of a borehole in the presence of formation
with radial distribution of near-wellbore stresses enables us to principal stresses with the borehole axis parallel to the
estimate horizontal stress magnitudes. overburden stress.

Formation stresses from sonic data Near-wellbore stresses

Sonic velocities in formations change as a function of rock The presence of a borehole causes near-wellbore stress
lithology/minerlogy, porosity, clay content, fluid saturation, distributions that are, generally, calculated based on linear
stresses, and temperature. To estimate changes in the elasticity using the wellbore pressure, pore pressure together
formation stress magnitudes from measured changes in sonic with the estimated formation principal stresses. Near-wellbore
velocities, it is necessary to select a depth interval with a cylindrical stresses can be expressed in terms of far-field
reasonably uniform lithology, clay content, saturation and formation stresses as described by Jaeger and Cook11
temperature so that measured changes in velocities at different
positions can be related to corresponding changes in the rock S+ a2 S 4 a 2 3a 4 a2 (1)
stress. Any stress-induced change in porosity is accounted for σ rr = (1 − 2 ) + − (1 − 2 + 4 ) cos 2θ − PW 2 ,
2 r 2 r r r
in terms of corresponding changes in the formation effective
bulk density and stiffnesses in the acoustoelastic model used a2 3a 4 a2
σ θθ =
S+ S
(1 + 2 ) − − (1 + 4 ) cos 2θ + PW 2 , (2)
to study effects on in-situ stresses on velocities of subsurface
2 r 2 r r
rocks. Assuming that measured differences in plane wave
velocities at different radial positions are largely caused by
2a 2
corresponding changes in the near-wellbore stresses, it is σ ZZ = SV − ν S − cos 2θ , (3)
possible to invert radial variations in sonic velocities for the r2
far-field horizontal stress magnitudes.
S− 2a 2 a4 (4)
Elastic wave propagation in a borehole σ rθ = − (1 + 2 − 3 4 ) sin 2θ ,
2 r r
An acoustic source in a fluid-filled borehole generates
headwaves as well as relatively stronger borehole-guided
modes. Figure 1 shows schematic of a borehole in the
S + = S H max + S h min ,
presence of formation principal stresses with the borehole
parallel to the overburden stress (X3-axis). A standard sonic S − = S H max − S h min , (5)
measurement system consists of placing a piezoelectric or
electrodynamic source and an array of hydrophone receivers
inside a fluid-filled borehole. A monopole source generates where SV, SHmax, and Shmin, respectively, are the overburden,
primarily the lowest-order axisymmetric Stoneley mode, maximum, and minimum horizontal stresses in the far-field,
together with compressional and shear headwaves. In contrast, PW is the wellbore pressure, a is the borehole radius, and r
a dipole source with azimuthal sensitivity can excite two denotes the radial position from the borehole axis, q is the
orthogonal flexural modes in a vertical borehole in the azimuth measured with respect to the maximum horizontal
presence of differences in the maximum and minimum stress direction, and n denotes the Poisson’s ratio.
horizontal stresses. The lowest-order axisymmetric Stoneley Elastic wave velocities in porous materials change as a
and flexural modes are dominant signals acquired as part of function of effective stresses in the propagating medium.
sonic logging.
These effective stresses sij are defined by12
SPE 109842
σ ij = S ij − α δ ij PP , (6)
where dij is the Kronecker delta and the Biot parameter a is
given by
K
α =1 − , (7)
KS
where K is the bulk modulus of the dry aggregate and KS is the
intrinsic bulk modulus of the solid matrix. The porosity effect
is accounted for in the effective bulk modulus K of the dry
aggregate.
Figure 2a illustrates typical near-wellbore stress distributions
along the maximum horizontal stress direction, whereas Figure
2b depicts stress distributions along the minimum horizontal
direction that coincides with the azimuth for potential
breakouts to occur. Note that these stress distributions are
calculated based on linear elasticity and ignores any plastic
yielding of rocks that are often present.
Fig. 2a-Typical near-wellbore stress distributions along the
maximum horizontal stress direction.
Fig. 2b-Typical near-wellbore stress distributions slong the
minimum horizontal stress direction where borehole breakouts
are likely to occur.
Figure 3 displays schematic of the borehole Stoneley and two
orthogonal flexural dispersions in the presence of stress
distributions shown in Figures 2a and 2b.
3
Fig. 3-Schematic of a borehole Stoneley and two orthogonal
flexural dispersions for radial polarizations parallel and
perpendicular to the maximum horizontal stress direction.
The two orthogonal flexural dispersions in a vertical well
corresponding to radial polarizations parallel and
perpendicular to the maximum horizontal stress direction
exhibit crossovers in the presence of near-wellbore stress
concentrations caused by the far-field maximum and minimum
horizontal stresses13 as shown in Figures 2a and 2b. These two
flexural dispersions can be inverted to obtain radial profiles of
the fast and slow shear slownesses using a previously reported
algorithm14-18. Similarly, the Stoneley dispersion can be
inverted to obtain radial profile of the horizontal shear
slowness in the X1-X2 plane. Figure 4 shows typical radial
profiles of the two dipole shear slownesses together with the
Stoneley shear slowness that is essentially uniform in the
presence such borehole stress concentrations. Note that these
radial profiles are based on the assumption that there is no
plastic yielding of the rock even close to the borehole surface.
Fig. 4-Schematic of radial profiles of the two orthogonal dipole
shear slownesses obtained from the inversion of two flexural
dispersions; and the Stoneley shear slowness obtained from the
inversion of Stoneley dispersion in the absence of any plastic
yielding of the rock.
The flexural slownesses in the two orthogonal sagittal planes
yield the two corresponding effective shear moduli C44 and
C55, whereas the horizontal shear slowness provides an
estimate of the shear modulus C66 in the borehole cross-
4 SPE 109842
sectional plane. Each of these effective shear moduli can be
expressed in terms of an intrinsic shear modulus and an
perturbative addition caused by the principal stresses at
various radial positions from the borehole axis. Figure 5
displays schematic of radial profiles of the three shear moduli
moduli C44, C55, and C66 corresponding to the radial profiles of
shear slownesses shown in Figure 4, for the idealized case of
near-wellbore stress concentrations obtained from linear
elasticity in the absence of any nonlinear or plastic
deformation of the rock close to the boeehole surface.
Fig. 5-Schematic of radial profiles of the three shear moduli for
near-wellbore stress concentrations obtained from linear
elasticity and ignoring any plastic yielding of rock close to the
borehole surface.
Based on an acoustoelastic model that relates effects of in-
situ stresses on velocities of rocks, changes in shear moduli
can be expressed in terms of changes in the three principal
stresses in the propagating medium19-22. Changes in the far-
field shear moduli in a homogeneously streesed rock are
related to the far-field formation stresses by the following
equations
C 44 − C 66 = AE (σ V − σ H ), (8)
C 55 − C 66 = AE (σ V − σ h ), (9)
C 55 − C 44 = AE (σ H − σ h ), (10)
where sV, sH, and sh denote the effective overburden,
maximum horizontal, and minimum horizontal stresses,
respectively; and
C456
AE = 2 + , (11)
μ eastern part of the Tampen Spur area. To maintain an optimal
is the acoustoelastic coefficient, C55 and C44 denote the shear
moduli for the fast and slow shear waves, respectively;
C456=(C155-C144)/2, is a formation nonlinear parameter that
defines the acoustoelastic coefficient; and μ represents the
shear modulus in a chosen reference state. Higher-order
coefficients of nonlinear elasticity C144, C155, and C456 are used
to calculate stress coefficients of shear velocities from an
acoustoelastic model of wave propagation in prestressed
materials6,7,9. Notice that only two of three equations (8), (9),
and (10) are independent. However, there are four unknowns:
C144, C155, sH, and sh. Consequently, we form two additional
difference equations based on differences in the shear modulus
C55 at radial positions A and B; and differences in the shear
modulus C44 at radial position C and C55 at radial position B as
shown in Figure 5. Notice that we do not use shear modulus
C44 in the near-wellbore region, because this shear modulus is
generally affected by near-wellbore plastic yielding along the
azimuth where breakouts are likely to occur. Assuming a
borehole parallel to the X3-axis, changes in the fast-dipole
shear modulus C55 as a function of radial position can be
expressed in terms of the borehole axial (sZZ), radial (srr), and
hoop (sqq) stresses21
σ rr (r / a)
C 55 (r / a) = [C 55 − ν C144 + (1 − ν ) C155 ]
2μ (1 + ν )
σ θθ (r / a )
+ [C144 − (1 + 2ν )C 55 − 2ν C155 ]
2μ (1 + ν )
σ ZZ (r / a )
+ [2 μ (1 + ν ) + C 55 − ν C144 + (1 − ν )C155 ] ,
2 μ (1 + ν )
(12)
where the far-field borehole axial axial (sZZ), radial (srr), and
hoop (sqq) stresses correspond to the formation overburden,
maximum and minimum horizontal stresses, respectively, as
shown in Figure 2a. Similar expressions exist for the other two
shear moduli C44 and C66.
Radial distributions of these borehole cylindrical stresses are
known in terms of the far-field overburden Sv, maximum
horizontyal SHmax and minimum horizontal Shmin using the
Kirsch’s equations based on linear elasticity as given by
equations (1)-(5). Consequently, differences in the shear
moduli at two radial positions together with corresponding
differences in the radial, hoop, and axial stresses yield
nonlinear algebraic equations in terms of formation nonlinear
constants and horizontal stress magnitudes. The nonlinear
constants (C144 and C155) are strongly dependent on formation
lithology and are defined with respect to a local reference state
at the depth of interest.
Analysis of field data
We analyze sonic data for the estimation of formation stresses
in the Kvitebjorn field that has been producing gas condensate
from Brent reservoir under pressure depletion for about 2
years. The Kvitebjorn is a high pressure (770 bar) and high
temperature (155oC) field, located in block 34/11 in the south-
drawdown and pore pressure within a safe window that would
avoid any catastrophic failures of cap rock, it is important to
monitor formation effective stresses periodically as production
continues. In addition, estimates of the current formation stress
state are of importance in planning for the next development
well in the field. To this end, we have acquired both open-hole
and cased-hole sonic logs to provide us with a reference for
subsequent time-lapse measurements after depletion. The
reservoir was depleted by about 30 bar at the time of open-
hole sonic data acquisition.
SPE 109842
Estimation of formation stress magnitudes starts from a
standard processing of cross-dipole sonic data that helps in
identifying depth intervals that exhibit shear-slowness
anisotropy. We have used open-hole sonic logs for the
estimation of formation stresses in this study. Figure 6 shows a
cross-dipole sonic log in a sand reservoir interval. We notice
evidence of stress-induced shear slowness anisotropy and the
fast-shear azimuth is approximately NE 65o in this reservoir
interval.
estimated to be 220 μs/ft.
Fig. 6-Cross-dipole sonic logs: The green shaded area in the depth
track denotes differences between the maximum and minimum
energies in the cross-component. The first track contains the gamma
ray (green line). The next three tracks show, respectively, the fast-
shear direction measured from the north; the fast-, and slow-shear
slowness logs; and the processing window used to obtain the fast-
shear azimuth.
5
The cross-dipole sonic processing is followed by transforming
the measured sonic slownesses into corresponding
compressional and shear moduli in the far-field together with a
display of formation lithology (3D-anisotropy). Figure 7
displays results of the elastic moduli log obtained for this
reservoir interval (3D-anisotropy log).
XX10
XX30
XX50
Fig. 7-3D Anisotropy logs showing the lithology in track-1
followed by a depth track. The next track-2 contains the
bit size, caliper and relative dip. Track-3 displays C44_TIV
and C66_TIV that are referred to the TI-anisotropy axes.
The red shading indicates permeable intervals ( C66<C44),
and the yellow shading indicates anisotropic shales (
C44<C66). Track-4 shows C44, C55 and C66 logs referred
to the borehole axes.
6 SPE 109842

Next we identify those reservoir depth intervals where cross-

dipole dispersions exhibit crossovers implying that stress-
induced azimuthal anisotropy is dominating the acquired sonic
data. We can then invert the measured dipole dispersions to
obtain radial profiles of the two shear moduli C44 and C55
corresponding to the slow- and fast-dipole dispersions,
respectively. In addition, we obtain radial variation of the third
shear modulus C66 by inverting the Stoneley dispersion. Figure
8 shows radial profiles of these moduli at chosen depth of
interest (4335.86 m).

Fig. 9B-Acoustoelastic coefficient (Ae) plotted as afunction of

effective stress ratio (DsH/Ds)

The acoustoelastic coefficient Ae(data) can be calculated from

Fig. 8-Radial profiles of the three shear moduli obtained from
radial profiles of the three shear slownesses by inverting the two
cross-dipole and Stoneley dispersions.
equation (8) as a function of the effective stress ratio
DsH/DsV. Note that the equation (8) exhibits a singularity
when the ratio DsH/DsV = 1 (Figure 9B). We can also
compute the coefficient Ae from the two difference equations
in terms of the two dipole shear moduli C44 and C55 using two
radial positions. This estimate of the parameter Ae(model) is
also calculated as a function of the ratio DsH/DsV. It is
important to make sure that shear moduli at radial positions
outside the plastically yielded region are used.

These profiles yield the far-field shear moduli that are used in
equations (8) through (10). The other two difference equations
are obtained from radial profiles of the two shear moduli C44
and C55.

Based on the three far-field shear moduli, we can obtain the

following relationship between between DsH/Dsh and
DsH/DsV using equations (8) and (9). The solid curve in
Figure 9A shows this relationship at the chosen depth.

Fig. 9C-Relative error [Ae(model)-Ae(data)]/Ae(data) plotted as a

function of the stress ratio DsH/DsV .

Next we search for the stress ratio DsH/DsV that minimizes

Fig. 9A-The solid curve depicts the relationship between the far-
field formation effective stress ratios DsH/Dsh and DsH/DsV.
the reative error between Ae(data) and Ae(model). At this
depth, the relative error is minimum when the ratio DsH/DsV
= 0.94545 (Figure 9C). Given this ratio, we can then calculate
the stress ratio DsH/Dsh using results shown in Figure 9A.
Thus we have now calculated both the maximum and
minimum horizontal stresses. The total stresses are next
calculated by adding the pore pressure at this depth of interest
to the effective stresses estimated.
SPE 109842
Compensation for the fluid mobility
The aforementioned equations (8) through (12) assume that
differences in the three shear moduli are caused by differences
in the three principal stresses. However, in highly permeable
sand reservoirs, the shear modulus C66 in the cross-sectional
plane of borehole is reduced by the fluid mobility. We can
compensate for the mobility-induced reduction in C66 in the
estimation of stress magnitudes as described below:
a. Estimate fluid mobility parallel to the cross-
sectional plane using NMR permeability log,
pretest using a fluid sampling tool, or core
data.
b. Run a forward model to calculate reduction
in C66 caused by the estimated fluid mobility
in step (a).
c. Estimate stress magnitudes for a chosen
C66’/C66 ratio, where C66 is the measured
shear modulus from the Stoneley data, and
C66’ is the corrected modulus after removing
mobility effects.
We have calculated the maximum and minimum horizontal
stress magnitudes as a function of parameter g=C66’/C66, so
that we can estimate these stress magnitudes that are
compensated for the fluid mobility effects on the shear
modulus C66. Figure 10 displays formation stress magnitudes
as a function of this parameter.
Fig. 10-Formation stress magnitudes plotted as a function of
parameter g.
Insofar as the fluid mobility increases Stoneley slownesses at
all frequencies by about 1 to 5%, an equivalent decrease in the
shear modulus ranges approximately from 2 to 10%. Any
uncertainty in the estimate of formation stress magnitudes due
to an uncertainty in fluid mobility can be inferred from results
presented in Figure 10. Expected range of g is between 1 and
1.10 for a typical permeable reservoir.
7
Compensation for the fluid mobility
To constrain the estimated stress magnitudes, we assume that
the earth stresses at a given depth cannot exceed the frictional
strength of existing faults.17 Consequently, we check for the
consistency of estimated horizontal stress magnitudes against
allowable stresses within the stress polygon constructed based
on Coulomb and Anderson faulting theories. Coulomb faulting
theory predicts the difference between the maximum and
minimum principal stresses in terms of frictional strength of
faulted (failed) rock at a given depth and pore pressure.
Anderson faulting theory helps in defining relative stress
magnitudes. Following Jaeger and Cook16 and Moos et al.17, we
know that for normal faulting
σ1 S − PP
= V
σ 3 Sh min − PP
[
≤ (μ 2f + 1)1 / 2 + μ f ] 2
, (13)
where μf is the coefficient of friction of the earth’s crust at the
chosen depth. Figure 11 displays the stress polygon based on
the Coulomb’s frictional equilibrium condition for the
assumed coefficient of friction of 0.4 (Friction angle = 22
degrees). The location of the blue x denotes the estimated
values of SHmax and Shmin. The dashed blue and red lines
denote the tensile strength and confined compressive strength
of 0.7 MPa and 30.2 MPa, respectively. If the estimated
stresses exceed these thresholds, tensile fracture and breakout
would occur at the borehole surface. The estimated stresses
denoted by X are slightly below the threshold implying
absence of any borehole failure for the wellbore pressure at
this depth.
Fig. 11-Maximum and minimum horizontal stresses constrained
by Coulomb’s frictional equilibrium and borehole failures for the
assumed wellbore pressure PW.
Table 1 summarizes estimates of the maximum and minimum
horizontal stress magnitudes obtained at nearby depths in the
same reservoir.
8 SPE 109842

Summary and conclusions

A reliable in-situ stress determination is a premise for all

Table 1: SHmax and Shmin magnitudes geomechanical evaluations of a reservoir including initial
MD TVD SV SHmax Shmin Pp drilling, infill drilling, sand prediction, stimulation and
(m ) (m) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) fracturing, well integrity evaluation, coupling with reservoir
4308.73 xxxxxxx 87.9 87.1 86.2 75.8 flow analyses, fault reactivation and environmental aspects
particularly related to injection. Estimation of formation
4324.27 xxxxxxx 88.3 87.0 86.0 71.1 stresses using sonic data can help in analyzing time-lapse
stress estimates during the production life of the field and take
4335.86 xxxxxxx 88.6 87.6 86.9 71.6 appropriate remedial action as depletion increases.

Differences in the three shear moduli outside the stress

Figure 12 shows comparison of stress magnitudes obtained concentration annulus are related to differences in the three
from radial variations of the three shear moduli with those principal stresses in terms of an acoustoelastic coefficient
from conventional techniques. Notice that we have good referred to a local reference state. There are two independent
agreement between the minimum horizontal stress magnitude difference equations that relate the effective overburden,
obtained from a minifrac test and that obtained from a new maximum and minimum horizontal stress magnitudes and the
technique using borehole sonic data. These data has been acoustoelastic coefficient. Two additional difference equations
subsequently used for calibrating the continuous stress logs in relating dipole shear moduli at two radial positions within the
the Mechanical Earth Model24. stress concentration annulus but outside any possible
plastically yielded region enable estimation of both the
maximum and minmum horizontal stress magnitudes. The
0 GR(gAPI ) 200 70 MPa 95
overburden stress is reliably known from the formation bulk
density. The minimum horizontal stress can also be estimated
Vertical stress
Shstress from either a mini-frac test or leak-off test and interpolated
over a reasonably uniform lithology. We have demonstrated
that stress magnitude estimates obtained from radial profiles of
SH Stress the three shear moduli are in good agreement with the
ΔMDT minimum horizontal stress magnitude obtained from a
XX00 minifrac test at a neighboring depth. These data has been
SH, Sh XLOT
subsequently used for calibrating the continuous stress logs in
using Sonic the Mechanical Earth Model24.

XX50

Pore pressure model

Fig. 12-Comparison of the maximum and minimum horizontal

stress magnitudes obtained from radial profiles of the three shear
moduli and minimum horizontal stress at a nearby depth
estimated from a minifrac test. The solid red and green lines for
the horizontal stress magnitudes are obtained from a technique
described in Ref. 24
SPE 109842 9

Nomenclature 8. Sinha, B.K., and Kostek, S., “Stress-induced azimuthal anisotropy

SV = Overburden stress in borehole flexural waves”: Geophysics, 61, (1996) 1899-1907.
SHmax = Maximum horizontal stress 9. Winkler, K.W., Sinha, B.K., and Plona, T.J., “Effects of borehole
Shmin = Minimum horizontal stress stress concentrations in dipole anisotropy measurements,”
sij = Effective stress tensor Geophysics, 63, (1998) 11-17.
Sij = Formation stress tensor 10. Liu, Q.H., and Sinha, B.K., “ A 3D cylindrical PML/FDTD method
PP = Pore pressure for elastic waves in fluid-filled pressurized boreholes in triaxially
PW = Wellbore pressure stressed formations,” Geophysics, 68,(2003) 1731-1743.
a = Biot parameter 11. Jaeger, J.C., and Cook, N.G.W., “Fundamentals of rock
n = Poisson’s ratio mechanics,” ed., Third edition, (1979) New York: Chapman &
q = Azimuth from the SHmax direction Hall, pp. 28-30.
dij = Kronecker delta
12. Nur, A., and Byerlee, J.D., “An exact effective stress law for
K = Bulk modulus of the dry frame
elastic deformation of rock with fluids”, J. Geophys. Res., 76,
KS = Bulk modulus of solid matrix
(1971) 6414-6419.
f = Porosity
a = Borehole radius 13. Sinha, B. K., Kane, M. R., and Frignet, B., “Case History – Dipole
dispersion crossover and sonic logs in a limestone reservoir”,
C111, C144, C155 = Formation nonlinear constants
Geophysics, 65, (2000) 390-407.
s1 = Maximum effective principal stress
s3 = Minimum effective principal stress 14. Burridge, R., and Sinha, B. K., “Inversion for formation shear
mf = Coefficient of internal friction modulus and radial depth of investigation using borehole flexural
th
srr = Effective radial stress waves”, 66 Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded
Abstract, (1996) 158-161.
sqq = Effective hoop stress
szz = Effective axial stress 15. Sinha, B. K., Kane, M. R., Frignet, B., and Burridge, R., “Radial
NF = Normal-fault stress regime variations in cross-dipole slownesses in a limestone reservoir”,
th
SS = Strike-slip stress regime 70 Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., (2000) Expanded
RF = Reverse-fault stress regime Abstract.
MD = Measured depth 16. Sinha, B. K., and Burridge, R., “Radial profiling of formation shear
TVD = True vertical depth velocity from borehole flexural dispersions”, Proc., 2001 IEEE
International Ultrasonics Symposium, Atlanta, GA
Acknowledgements 17. Sinha, B.K., Burridge, R., and Kane, M.R., 2003, Sonic well
The authors thank Statoil Kvitebjorn asset and Schlumbeger logging for radial profiling: U.S. Patent 6 661 761 B2.
for permittin g to publish this work. 18. Sinha, B.K. 2004, Near-wellbore characterization using radial
th
profiles of shear slownesses: 74 Annual International Meeting,
References SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 326-329.
1. Desroches, J., and Kurkjian, A., “Applications of Wireline Stress
19. Sinha, B. K., “Inversion of borehole dispersions for formation
Measurements”, SPE 48960 (1998).
stresses:”, Proc. 1997 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium,
2. Vernik, L., and Zoback, M.D., “Estimation of maximum horizontal pp. 781-786, IEEE Catalog No. 97CH36118 (October 5-8, 1997).
principal stress magnitude from stress-induced well bore
20. Sinha, B. K., “Determination of stress characteristics of earth
breakouts in the Cajon Pass Scientific Research Borehole,” J.
formations:”, U.S. Patent 7,042,802, May 9, 2006.
Geophys. Res., 97(B4), (1992) 5109-5119.
21. Sinha, B.K., 2002, Determining stress parameters of formations
3. Bratton, T., Bornemann, T., Li, Q., Plumb, R., Rasmus, J.,
using multi-mode velocity data: U.S. Patent 6 351 991.
Krabbe, H., “Logging-while-drilling images for geomechanical,
geological and petrophysical interpretations”, Transactions, 40
th 22. Sinha, B.K., Vissapragada, B., Renlie, L., and Tysse, S., ”Radial
Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA (1999), Oslo, Norway, profiling of the three formation shear moduli and its application to
Paper JJJ. well completions”, Geophysics, 71, (2006) E65-E77.

4. Bratton, T., Bricout, V., Lam, R., Plona, T., Sinha, B., Tagbor, K.,
Venkitaraman, A., and Borbas, T., “Rock strength parameters
from annular pressure while drilling and dipole sonic dispersion
th
analysis”, Transactions, 45 Annual Logging Symposium,
SPWLA, Noordwijk, Norway, June 6-9 (2004).
23. Moos, D., and Zoback, M.D., “Utilization of observations of well
bore failure to constrain the orientation and magnitudes of crustal
stresses: application to continental deep sea drilling project and
ocean drilling program boreholes”, J. Geophys. Res., 95, (1990)
9305-9325..

5. Haimson, B.C., “The Hydraulic Fracturing Method of Stress 24. Wendt, A.S., Kongslien, M., Sinha, B.K., Vissapragada, B.,
Measurement: Theory and Practice”, Comprehensive Rock Newton, A., Skomedal, E., Renlie, L., and Pederen, E.S.,
Engineering, J. Hudson (ed.), Oxford, UK, Pergamon Press ”Enhanced mechanical earth modelling and wellbore stability
(1993), 3, 297328. calculations using advanced sonic measurements – A case study
of the HPHT Kvitebjorn field in the Norwegian North Sea”, SPE
6. Sinha, B.K., “Elastic waves in crystals under a bias”,
109662.
Ferroelectrics, 41, (1982) 61-73.
7. Norris, A.N., Sinha, B.K., and Kostek, S., “Acoustoelasticity of
solid/fluid composite systems”, Geophys. J. Internat., 118, (1994)
439-446.