SPE 128339
Deep Offshore Fracture Pressure Prediction in the Niger Delta – A New
Approach
Joseph Ajienka, SPE; Franck Egbon, SPE; and Uchechukwu Onwuemena, SPE, Total E&P Nigeria Limited
Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
rd
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 33 Annual SPE International Technical
Conference and Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, August 3-5, 2009.
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 acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-
9435.
Abstract
Drilling in deepwater is becoming more and more
expensive. There is need to know before hand, for well
planning purposes, the values of the fracture pressure.
The Fracture pressure could be determined by
predictive or verificative methods. Many correlations
exists that can be used to predict the fracture pressure.
However, they are mostly limited to onshore and
shallow water fields. There is therefore the need to
develop correlations that can reliably predict the
fracture pressure for deep water fields.
This paper explores the concept of developing and
possibly modifying some existing correlations to suit
deep offshore needs as well as develop an Excel
Spreadsheet and a V-Basic program that can be used
to predict fracture pressure for deep offshore fields
both in the Niger Delta region and the Gulf of Mexico.
Furthermore, the predicted fracture gradient (LOT)
values yielded by the various correlations were
compared with actual LOT from a particular deep
offshore field in the Niger Delta and the results
analyzed.
The results of the analysis showed that some of the
correlations studied, especially Matthew & Kelly, can
be used to reliably predict the facture gradient for deep
offshore fields.
Introduction
Fracture pressure is the minimum pressure required to
overcome the formation pore pressure and the strength
of the rock matrix as to induce fractures in the
formation. Thus, a knowledge of the pressure at which
formation fracture will occur at all depths in the well is
essential for well planning and drilling operations, as
well as for well stimulation and injection operations in
9
secondary recovery.
Much has been written on the subject of formation pore
and fracture pressure gradient estimation. The
methods for determining ‘geopressures’ could be
classified as (1) Predictive methods and (2) Verification
methods.3,7,18 The term geopressure includes pore
pressures, fracture pressures and overburden
pressures. For drilling operations, these pressures are
most often expressed in the form of a gradient that can
be compared with the drilling mud density. Initial well
planning is based on formation fracture data obtained
by a predictive method. After casing is cemented in
place, the anticipated fracture resistance of the
formation just below the casing shoe must be verified
by a pressure test before drilling can be continued to
the next planned casing depth. Such pressure tests
includes leak off tests (LOT) and Formation integrity
Test (FIT).
Leak off tests are very important since they are used to
determine the fracture gradient of a given area. It is a
relatively simple and inexpensive test that uses mud to
pressurize the well until formation fracture is initiated.
A major challenge encountered during well planning
and drilling operations for deep water wells is
estimating correctly the fracture gradient. This is so
because the formation strength (as sometimes
measured by the fracture gradient) is less, especially
near the mud line, than a comparable well on land or in
shallow water because of the higher in situ stress in
the formation caused by the hydraulic force exerted by
the column of water. This effectively narrows the
margin between the pore pressure and fracture
gradient, thus increasing the cost of drilling since more
casing strings will be required to drill the well to the
same depth below the sea floor. With the lower
formation strength, pore pressures that would be
managed at the more shallow depth can cause a
multitude of problems that range from “shallow water
flows” that make it very difficult to even set the surface
casings to situations where the well cannot be
completed at all, and an expensive side track is
4
required.
2 J. Ajienka, F. Egbon and U. Onwuemena SPE 128339

Scope of Work drilled safety without cementing another casing string

Many correlations exist for the estimation of fracture
pressure gradient. However, they are mostly limited to
onshore or shallow water wells. There is therefore the
need to develop correlations that can yield improved
prediction of fracture pressure for deep water wells and
to have more knowledge and control of the prediction
process, since a more accurate geopressure prediction
can lower cost, reduce problems and improve the
safety of drilling operations.
The aim of this study includes
• Identifying the different correlations used for
estimating fracture pressure gradient and modifying
them to suit deep offshore needs.
• Evaluating and comparing the performance of
these modified correlations using data from a deep
offshore field in the Niger Delta
Emphasis has been placed on how efficient these
correlations are able to estimate the fracture pressure
gradient for deep offshore fields. The measure of
effectiveness of the various models was evaluated by
the variance of the gradient produced by the model
from the actual measured field gradient.
7, 20
in the well.
To understand underground stresses that resists
formation fraction, it is necessary to understand that
formation rocks behave like most solids when under
stress. They go through an elastic phase, where there
is a simple relationship between stress and strain, then
yield/collapse or enter a plastic phase, where the
relationship is complex and often unpredictable, before
final collapse.21
The stresses imposed upon formation rocks as a
result of the geologic processes of deposition and
compaction. Pore pressure and fracture pressure
prediction methods are based upon Terzaghi’s original
equation
P = σob – σv 1
Where
P= pore pressure (psi)
σob = overburden stress (psi)
σv = effective vertical matrix stress (psi)
The overburden pressure σob is the pressure exerted
by the weight of the overlying sediment. The vertical
overburden stress resulting from geostatic load at a
sediment depth, Ds for sediments having an average
bulk density ρb, is given by
D

Also, an Excel spreadsheet and Software

σob = ∫
0
ρ b gdD 2
Where g = gravitational constants
(FracPredictor) using V-basic that can conveniently
The bulk density ρb at a given depth is related to the
predict fracture pressures for both Onshore and Deep
grain density ρg, the pore fluid density, ρfl, and the
Offshore wells in the Niger Delta and Gulf of Mexico
porosity Φ as follows
were developed.
ρb = ρg (1- Φ) + ρfl Φ 3
Literature Search Where φ = φ o exp(− KD s ) 4
For offshore fields, the overburden σob is calculated by
With the drilling of most deep wells, formations are integrating Eq. 2 above into two parts
penetrated that will flow naturally at a significant rate. Dw D
In drilling these wells, safety indicates that the well σ ob = ∫[ρg (1−φ) + ρ flφ]gdD+ ∫[ρg (1−φ) + ρ flφ]gdD
bore pressure (at any depth) between the naturally 0 Dw
occurring pressure of the formation fluids (the
For sea water Φ =1, ρfl = ρsw, the above equation
formation pore pressure) and the maximum well bore
solves completely to give
pressure that the formation can withstand without
fracture. Knowledge of how these two parameters vary (ρg − ρ fl )gφo
with depth is very important in planning and drilling σob = ρswgDw + ρg gDs − [1− e−kDs ] 5
deep wells-whether onshore or offshore.
k
Where
When abnormal formation pore pressure is
ρsw = sea water density
encountered, the density of the drilling fluid must
Dw = Water Depth
increased to maintain the well bore pressure to
Ds = Depth of sedimemt burial (from the mud line)
maintain the well bore pressure above the formation
Φo = surface porosity
pore pressure to prevent the flow from permeable
K = porosity decline constant
formations into the well. However, since the well bore
pressure must be maintained below the pressure that
For a formation to fracture, fluid pressure must be
will cause fracture in the more shallow, pressure that
applied to overcome the least line of resistance within
will cause fracture in the shallower, relatively weak,
the rock structure. When the fracture fluid pressure
exposed formation just below the casing shoe, there is
exceeds sum of the minimum matrix stress and pore
a maximum drilling fluid density that can be tolerated.
pressure, parting of the rock matrix occurs and the
This means that there is a maximum depth into the
abnormally pressured zone to which the well can be
3 Deep Offshore Fracture Pressure Prediction in the Niger Delta – A New Approach
fracture propagates. The preferred fracture orientation
is perpendicular to the least principal stress. See Fig 1.
Pff = σmin + P 6 fracture gradient prediction similar to Hubbert and
Where Pff = Fracture pressure (psi)
σmin = minimum matrix stress (psi)
P = pore pressure (psi)
The minimum matrix stress σmin is a fraction of the
vertical matrix stress σv.2, 8, 21
Methods of Fracture Gradient Estimation
Formation fraction pressure is greatly affected by the
formation pore pressure. Hence, the pore pressure
regime must be known before the use of a fracture
pressure correlation. There are several methods and
empirical correlations for predicting pore pressure;
however this is out of the scope of this work. The more
commonly used fracture pressure equations and
correlations are based upon Eq.6 above.
These correlations include
- Hubbert and Willis Equation (1957)
- Mathew and Kelly correlation (1967)
- Pennebaker Correlation (1968)
- Eaton’s Correlation (1969)
- Christman Correlation (1973)
Others include
- Goldsmith and Willson (1968)
- Fertl Correlation (1977)
- Oton Correlation (1980)
- Ikoku Correlation (1984)
- Ajienka et al (1988)
Hubbert and Willis, in 1957, published what is
generally considered a classic paper on hydraulic
fracturing. In this paper, they developed an equation to
predict the pressure required to fracture a formation.
Their theory is based on laboratory triaxial
compression tests and can be applied to tectonically
relaxed areas with normal faulting. Their model was
the basis for future methods, and it basically states that
the fracture pressure is equal to the minimum
horizontal stress plus the formation pore pressure. The
minimum horizontal stress is equal to some fraction of
the effective vertical stress, which is the overburden
pressure minus the formation pore pressure.
This minimum horizontal stress is about ½ to 1/3 of the
effective vertical matrix stress. The resulting equation
is
7
This equation is also based on the assumption that the
overburden pressure gradient approximates 1 psi/ft.
Although this model is the cornerstone for other
methods, it is not widely utilized, due to the low values
it normally yields because of the assumption of a
SPE 128339
constant stress ratio of 1/3 to 1/2 of the vertical
14
stress.
Matthews and Kelly published a method for
Willis, but utilized a variable matrix stress coefficient,
Ki. Their equation is expressed as
8
The coefficient, Ki, relates the actual matrix stress
conditions of the formation of interest to the conditions
of matrix stress if the formation is compacted normally.
Values for Ki are determined empirically from known
fracture initiation pressures for an area. Matthew and
Kelly developed Ki curves for the South Texas Gulf
Coast and the Louisiana Gulf Coast areas (See Fig.3).
The Matthews and Kelly method assumes the
overburden pressure gradient is equal to 1 psi/ft. 5, 15, 18
Pennebaker’s method, using seismic data, is
similar to the Matthews and Kelly method. Pennebaker
recognized that the overburden pressure gradient is
variable and related it to geological age. A set of
overburden pressure gradient curves versus depth was
developed based on interval transit time and are
utilized to determine the overburden pressure when
other methods are not available. These curves were
developed assuming that, since the bulk density of
sedimentary rock is roughly proportional to the degree
of compaction and the velocity of sedimentary rock
also depends on rock compaction, then a predictable
relation between bulk density and velocity is expected.
Similar to Matthews and Kelly, a stress ratio
coefficient K is utilized in the equation and is stated to
be a function of Poisson ratio and long term
deformation. The stress ratio “K” curve in Figure 4 was
estimated empirically from known fracture propagation
pressures. The fracture propagation pressures were
obtained horn the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast.
This “K” coefficient should vary with depth and geologic
age. The published values should provide conservative
estimates for any sedimentary basin, as long as the
proper overburden gradient is used. Pennebaker felt
that the overburden gradient, which is influenced by
2, 3, 20
geologic age, is the controlling factor.
Eaton expanded on the work of Hubbert and
Willis by formally introducing Poisson’s ratio, and a
variable overburden gradient. The amount of horizontal
stress caused by the vertical matrix stress is a function
of Poisson’s ratio v of the rock in question and is
expressed in the form of
9
The resulting fracture pressure gradient equation is:
10
4 J. Ajienka, F. Egbon and U. Onwuemena
The overburden pressure gradient is variable and is
determined as discussed previously. Poisson’s ratio v
for rocks increases with depth in the U.S. Gulf Coast
area and can be determined empirically from field data
or from sand strength analysis logs. Eaton back-
calculated Poisson’s ratio and produced a curve versus
depth (Figure 5) for the U.S. Gulf Coast area.
Poisson’s ratio trend is not exactly the same for
different areas and should be verified with local data if
at all possible. Data maybe used to develop an
accurate Poisson’s ratio curve for any basin in the
9, 10
world.
From his work on the Niger Delta, Oton (1980)
developed two fracture gradient correlations. One is for
shallower continental sediments, while the other is for
the underlying marine sediments. They are as follows
F P 1 σv
= + 11
D D 2 D
For the shallower sediments and
F P 1 σv
= + 12
D D 1.5 D
For the underlying sediments. 1, 16, 17
From Eqns 11 & 12 it can be inferred that he (Oton)
assumed a constant Poisson ratio of 0.333 for the
continental sediments and 0.4 for the marine
sediments. This range is narrow and can lead to
erroneous conclusions at shallower and deeper
depths. 1
Ajienka et al. (1988) proposed a fracture gradient
correlation. They used a total of 135 leak-of-test data
from 93 key onshore wells covering a depth range from
2159-13,070 ft. the correlation was developed using
linear multiple regression. The matrix stress ratio Ki
was assumed to be depth dependent and thus a
correlation was developed for it. The correlation is as
follows:
Fp ⎛S⎞
= 14.57595 + 0.0002193 D − 16.16777⎜ ⎟ − 0.270395 K i + 0.6665068⎜ ⎟
D ⎝D⎠
Where
Ki = 0.1357264 + 0.0000366 D 13 1
Of all these methods, the Eaton method (E) is by far
the most popular, followed by the Matthews and Kelly
method (MK), Pennebaker (PE) and Hubbert and Willis
method (HW). Other methods are sometimes used but
their application is very limited. 5, 7
Sources of Data
The data used in the analysis was drawn from 19
onshore wells covering a depth range of 500 ft to
SPE 128339
14454 ft and 7 deep offshore wells ranging from a
water depth of 1318 m to 1501m, all from the Niger
Delta region.
From the bulk density readings (see Table 1) of the
onshore wells, models for predicting the porosities and
overburden gradient for the Niger Delta was developed
(see Fig 3 and 4). The porosity was calculated using
the following formula:
ρb − ρ g
φ= 14
ρ g − ρ fl
Where
ρg = Density of the matrix grain (assumed to be equal
to 2.60 g/cm3 for the Niger Delta).
ρb = Bulk density from the bulk density data in g/cm3
ρfl = Pore fluid density (assumed to be equal 1.021
g/cm3 for the Niger Delta) and
Φ = Average porosity for the assumed grain density
and pore fluid density at that given depth.
A semi log plot of depth versus the average porosity
was plotted (see Figs 6 and 7) and after proper fine
tuning was, a good straight line trend with a degree of
correlation r2 = 0.912 was obtained. The equation of
the line is given by
φ = φ o exp(− KDs )
Where
φo = surface porosity
K = porosity decline constant
Ds = depth of sediment burial below the surface
From Figs 7a and Fig 7b, it can be inferred that for the
Niger Delta region, the average surface porosity varies
from 37% to 51%. However, the model
Φ= 0.368exp (-0.000725Ds) 15
was chosen for the Niger Delta region because of the
high coefficient of correlation obtained. Equation 15
was used throughout this entire analysis for the Niger
Delta region. For the Gulf of Mexico, Φ = 0.41exp (-
7
0.000085Ds) was used.
⎛P⎞ With the porosity model developed for the Niger Delta,
⎝D⎠ the bulk density, overburden pressure and overburden
gradient at several depths was calculated using Eqs. 2,
3 and 5.
Determination of Fracture Pressure Gradient
For this study several existing correlations were used
to determine the predicted fracture gradients. The
following correlations were used:
ƒ Hubbert and Willis
ƒ Matthew and Kelly
ƒ Eaton
ƒ GSR
5 Deep Offshore Fracture Pressure Prediction in the Niger Delta – A New Approach SPE 128339

Hubbert and Willis, Matthew and Kelly and Eaton
correlations were modified to account for the effect of
water on the fracture pressure gradients.
Error Analysis
This indicates the relationship between the measured
and predicted values. Values near zero indicate weak
relationship while those close to ± 1 indicates strong
relationship. The value of r is given by
N (ΣXY ) − (ΣX )(ΣY )
r= 20
[( NΣX − (ΣX ) 2 )( NΣY 2 − (ΣY ) 2 )]1 / 2
2

A comparative analysis of these correlations was done Where X and Y are the independent (actual) and
using the following statistical parameters: dependent (predicted) variables respectively.

Percentage Error PE Results / Discussion

Percentage Error indicates the deviation of a predicted
value from the actual or experimentally measured Table 2 shows the actual fracture gradient and the
value. It can either be positive or negative. For under predicted fracture gradient for a Deep Offshore field in
predictions, the percentage error is positive, and the Niger Delta region, as well as the percentage
negative for over predictions. deviations for each of the correlations compared.
( Xm − Xc ) A summary of the results of the statistical parameters
PEi = x100 16 evaluated is presented in Table 3. It can be seen that
Xm
for this particular Deep Offshore Niger Delta Field that
Where i = 1, 2, 3 … n
the Matthew and Kelly’s correlation performed better
Xc and Xm are the calculated (predicted) and
than the other correlations. The APE, APEabs and the
experimentally measured (actual) values respectively.
SD indicate a better prediction than was predicted by
other correlations.
Average Percentage Error APE
This is the mean percentage deviation of the calculated
Conclusion
(predicted) values from the experimental actual values
and is given as
Several fracture pressure gradient correlations have
1N been considered. They are;
APE = Σ PEi 17 • Hubbert and Willis
N i=1 • Matthew and Kelly
The lower the value of the APE, the more equally • Eaton
distributed is the errors between positive and negative • GSR
values.
From this study and based on the data that was used,
Average Absolute Percentage Error APEabs the following conclusions are made
This indicates the absolute percentage deviation of the • Matthew and Kelly’s Correlation showed a
calculated value from the experimental value and is better performance than all other correlations
given as that were used for this particular deep offshore
1N field in the Niger Delta
APEabs = Σ PEi 18 • This was followed by GSR’s Correlation,
N i=1 which performed better than the other two
The lower the value of the APEabs the better the Correlations
correlation
Nomenclature
Standard Deviation SD D Well Depth (measured from the RKB), ft
The standard deviation measures the degree of Di Equivalent Depth of Lowest Normally
dispersion. It indicates how the prediction of each Pressured Formation, ft
correlation departs from the actual or experimentally Ds Depth of Sediment Burial (from the
determined values. A lower value of standard deviation mudline), ft
represents a smaller degree of departure from the Dw Water Depth, ft
actual values. The Standard deviation is given as Fp Fracture Pressure, psi
1/ 2 Fσ Effective Matrix Stress Coefficient
⎡ 1 N
⎤
SD = ⎢ Σ( PEi ) 2 ⎥ 19 F/D Fracture Pressure Gradient, psi/ft
⎣ N − 1 i =1 ⎦ K Porosity Decline Constant, ft-1
P Pore Pressure, psi
Coefficient of Correlation r P/D Pore Pressure Gradient, psi/ft
S Overburden Pressure, psi
S/D Overburden Gradient, psi/ft
6 J. Ajienka, F. Egbon and U. Onwuemena SPE 128339

v Poisson Ratio
σv Effective Vertical Matrix Stress, psi 6. Christman, Stan A. “Offshore Fracture
σH Horizontal Matrix Stress, psi Gradients.” Journal of Petroleum Technology
σmin Minimum Matrix Stress, psi (8/73), pp. 910-914.
σob Overburden Stress, psi
ρb Bulk Density, g/cc 7. Constant, W.D., and A.T. Bourgoyne, Jr.
ρg Grain Density, g/cc “Fracture Gradient Prediction for Offshore
ρsw Sea Water Density, g/cc Wells.” Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE-
ρfl Pore Fluid Density, g/cc 15105 (4/86), 6pp.
Φ Porosity
Φo Surface porosity 8. Constant, W. David, and Adam T. Buorgoyne,
PE Percentage Error, % Jr. “Method to Predict Frac Gradient for
APE Average Percentage Error, % Abnormally Pressured Formations.” Petroleum
APEabs Absolute Average Percentage Error, % Engineer International (1/86), pp. 38, 40, 42,
SD Standard Deviation 43, 46.
r Coefficient of Correlation
9. Eaton, B.A. 1969. “Fracture Gradient
Acknowledgement Predictions and Its Applications in Oil Field
Opertions.” Journal of Petroleum Technology,
I wish to appreciate the Staff and Students of the pp.1353-1360.
Institute of Petroleum Studies for their invaluable
support during this study. 10. Eaton, Ben A. “Fracture Gradient Prediction
My special thanks goes to my project supervisors, Techniques and Their Applications in Drilling,
Prof. J.A. Ajienka and Engr. Franck Egbon for their Stimulation, and Secondary Recovery
invaluable advice and co-operation. Operations.” Society of Petroleum Engineers
of AIME, SPE-2163 (1968), 12pp.

References 11. Fertl, W.H. (ed) 1977. Predicting fracture

1. Ajienka J.A. & Nwokeji, B.I. 1988. Evaluating
the performance of onshore fracture pressure
gradient correlations in the Niger Delta. PhD-
report, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria,
15pp.
2. Anderson, R.A., Ingram D.S., and Zanier A.M.;
“Determining Fracture Pressure Gradients
from Well Logs.” Journal of Petroleum
Technology (11/73), pp. 1259-1268.
3. Bourgoyne, A.T. Jr., and F.S. Young, Jr. “The
Use of Drillability Logs for Formation
Evaluation and Abnormal Pressure Detection.”
th
SPWLA 14 Annual Logging Symposium
Proceedings (5/73), 15pp.
4. Cesaroni, Renzo, Diego Giacca, and Adelmo
Schenato. “Determining Fracture Gradients
While Drilling.” Petroleum Engineer
International (6/81), pp.60, 62, 64, 66, 72, 76,
78, 80, 84, 86.
pressure gradient for more efficient drilling.
Engineering Essentials of Modern Drilling. Gulf
Publishing Co., TX (19):76-79.
12. Hazoz, V.A., and V.A. Hurshudov. “Leak-Off
Tests Helps Determines Wellbore
Compressibility.” Oil & Gas Journal (11/93),
pp. 71-73.
13. Holbrook, P.W., D.A. Maggiori, and R.
Hensley. “Real-Time Pore Pressure and
Fracture Pressure Determination in All
Sedemintary Lithologies.” Society of Petroleum
Engineers (1994), 14pp.
14. Hubbert, M. K. and D.G. Willis; “Mechanics of
Hydraulic Fracturing.” Petroleum Transactions,
AIME, Vol. 210 (1957), pp. 153-168.
15. Matthews, W.R. and John Kelly; “How To
Predict Formation Pressure and Fracture
Gradient.” Oil & Gas Journal, Reprint (2/67), 7
pp.

5. Chikao Y., Shoichi I., Eaton B.A.; “An
Investigative Study of Recent Technologies
Used for Prediction, Detection, and Evaluation
of Abnormal Formation Pressure and Fracture
Pressure in North and South America”, SPE
Paper 36381, 1996.
16. Oton, S.W. (1980); “Overpressure Detection
and Control.” NAOC Geology Dept., Port
Harcourt, Nigeria.
17. Oton, S.W. (1982); “Pressure Considerations
in Well Planning and Control in the Niger
7 Deep Offshore Fracture Pressure Prediction in the Niger Delta – A New Approach SPE 128339

Delta.” Presented at the 6th Int’l conference of

SPE, Nigeria Section, Port Harcourt, 11-13
August.

18. Rocha, L.A. and Bourgoyne, A.T. (1996): “A

New Simple Method to Estimate Fracture
Pressure Gradient.” Society of Petroleum
Engineers, SPE-28710, pp.413-424.

19. Salz, L.B. “Relationship Between Fracture

Propagation Pressure and Pore Pressure.”
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
(10/77), 8pp.

20. Stein, Nathan. “How to Calculate Fracture

Pressures from Well Logs.” Petroleum
Engineer International (8/88), pp. 36-38.

21. Warpinski, N.R. and Smith, M.B. “Rock

Mechanics and Fracture Geometry,” Recent
Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing. SPE
Monograph (12/89), pp. 57-80.

22. Wuerker, R.G. “Annotated Tables of Strength

and Properties of Rocks.” Drilling, SPE
Petroleum Transactions Reprint Series No. 6
(1963), pp. 23-45.

23. Zamora, Mario. “New Method Predicts

Gradient Fracture.” Petroleum Engineering
International (9/89), pp. 38, 42-44, 46, 47.
8 J. Ajienka, F. Egbon and U. Onwuemena SPE 128339

Figure 1: Distribution of Stress Planes in a Unit of Rock

Formation

Figure 3: MATRIX STRESS COEFFICIENT

Figure 2: Typical Leak Off Test

Figure 4: Pennebaker’s Correlation for Effective Stress

Ratio
9 Deep Offshore Fracture Pressure Prediction in the Niger Delta – A New Approach SPE 128339

Chart Title
y = -13802Ln(x) - 13809
PP3
R2 = 0.912 porosity Log. (PP3)
0.1 1
0
2000
4000
6000

Depth ft
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000

Figure 7b: Plot of Sediment Depth vs Porosity

Figure 5: Eaton’s Correlation for Poisson’s

Ratio

Chart Title

Porosity
0.01 0.10 1.00
0
y = -5907.2Ln(x) - 1421 2000
R2 = 0.5076
S edim ent D epth ft

4000
6000
8000 Niger Delta

Log. (Niger Delta)

10000
12000
14000
16000
18000

Figure 6: Plot of Sediment Depth vs Porosity

PP2
porosity
0.10 1.00
0
2000
y = -11253Ln(x) - 7662.6
2 4000
R = 0.8917
6000
D e p th ft

8000 PP2
10000
Log.
12000 (PP2)
14000
16000

Figure 7a: Plot of Sediment Depth vs Porosity

10 J. Ajienka, F. Egbon and U. Onwuemena SPE 128339

Table 1: Bulk Density Readings Obtained From Logs (Courtesey of J.A. Ajienka)

Bulk Bulk
Depth Depth Depth Bulk Density
Density Density

ft ρb, g/cc ft ρb, g/cc ft ρb, g/cc

0 5500 2.22 7859 2.3
5500 2.05 6500 2.23 8859 2.32
6500 2.2 7500 2.25 9859 2.32
7500 2.2 8500 2.27 10859 2.49
8500 2.25 9500 2.27 11859 2.45
9500 2.27 10500 2.35 5911 2.17
10500 2.3 11500 2.4 6911 2.2
11500 2.3 5500 2.2 7911 2.22
12500 2.33 6500 2.25 8911 2.35
13500 2.33 7500 2.24 9911 2.27
3500 2.15 8500 2.3 10911 2.43
4500 2.18 9500 2.4 11911 2.53
5500 2.2 10500 2.4 4453 2.13
6500 2.22 11500 2.5 5453 2.17
7500 2.25 12500 2.4 6453 2.19
8500 2.3 2932 2.1 7453 2.2
9500 2.35 3932 2.11 8453 2.19
10500 2.4 4932 2.15 9453 2.3
11500 2.38 5932 2.3 10453 2.3
12500 2.1 6932 2.35 11453 2.3
4500 2.1 7932 2.33 12453 2.45
5500 2.15 3467 2.15 3454 2.1
6500 2.15 4467 2.18 4454 2.18
7500 2.2 5467 2.23 5454 2.2
8500 2.27 6467 2.2 6454 2.22
9500 2.3 7467 2.23 7454 2.23
10500 2.27 8467 2.33 8454 2.23
11500 2.33 9467 2.38 9454 2.28
500 2.05 10467 2.3 10454 2.3
1500 2.13 3859 2.12 11454 2.3
2500 2.15 4859 2.15 12454 2.3
3500 2.18 5859 2.2 13454 2.34
4500 2.2 6859 2.3 14454 2.34
11 Deep Offshore Fracture Pressure Prediction in the Niger Delta – A New Approach SPE 128339

Table 2: Comparison of the Performances of Different Fracture Pressure Gradient Correlations for a Deep Offshore Niger Delta

Field

Depth of
Well Water FPGC- FPGC- FPGC- FPGC- Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage
Sediment FPGM
Name Depth 1 2 3 4 Error -1 Error -2 Error -3 Error -4
Burial

m m emw emw emw emw emw % % % %

ips-1 1375 601 1.11 1.13 1.20 1.13 1.15 -1.49 -7.78 -1.49 -3.29

ips-1 1375 1356 1.39 1.29 1.37 1.28 1.36 7.29 1.54 8.01 2.26

ips-1 1375 2439 1.57 1.38 1.54 1.46 1.57 12.20 2.02 7.11 0.11

ips-1 1375 2742 1.65 1.40 1.58 1.50 1.62 14.91 3.97 8.83 1.54

ips-2 1393 856 1.28 1.22 1.26 1.18 1.23 4.49 1.36 7.63 3.71

ips-2 1393 1533 1.37 1.31 1.40 1.31 1.40 4.61 -1.94 4.61 -1.94

ips-3 1331 673 1.16 1.14 1.22 1.14 1.16 1.43 -5.49 1.43 -0.30

ips-3 1331 811 1.27 1.22 1.26 1.17 1.20 4.27 1.14 8.20 5.84

ips-3 1331 1366 1.40 1.29 1.37 1.28 1.35 8.02 2.32 8.74 3.75

ips-4 1318 524 1.19 1.17 1.19 1.11 1.11 1.73 0.05 6.77 6.77

ips-4 1318 1439 1.40 1.30 1.39 1.30 1.36 7.19 0.77 7.19 2.91

ips-

4G1 1318 686 1.32 1.20 1.23 1.15 1.16 9.37 7.10 13.14 12.39

ips-

4G1 1318 705 1.24 1.20 1.23 1.15 1.17 3.45 1.04 7.48 5.87

ips-

4G1 1318 1419 1.40 1.30 1.38 1.29 1.36 7.40 1.70 8.11 3.12

ips-5 1360 679 1.20 1.19 1.22 1.14 1.17 1.21 -1.28 5.36 2.87

ips-5 1360 1554 1.45 1.31 1.41 1.31 1.40 9.37 2.45 9.37 3.14

ips-

5G1 1360 679 1.20 1.19 1.22 1.14 1.17 1.21 -1.28 5.36 2.87

ips-

5G1 1360 842 1.15 1.15 1.26 1.18 1.22 0.27 -9.27 -2.33 -5.80

ips-

5G1 1360 1559 1.45 1.31 1.41 1.32 1.40 9.35 2.43 8.66 3.12

FPGM = Actual Values, FPGC-1 = Hubbert & Willis Values, FPGC-2 = Matthew & Kelly Values, FPGC-3 = Eatons

Values, FPGC-4 = GSR Correlation Values.

12 J. Ajienka, F. Egbon and U. Onwuemena SPE 128339

Table 3: Statistical Performance of the Different FPG Correlation for a Deep Offshore Field in the Niger Delta

Correlations APE APEabs SD r r2

Hubbert & Willis 5.59 5.75 7.23 0.95 0.91

Matthew & Kelly 0.04 2.89 3.95 0.98 0.96

Eaton 6.43 6.83 7.59 0.95 0.9

GSR 2.57 3.77 4.75 0.94 0.89

13 Deep Offshore Fracture Pressure Prediction in the Niger Delta – A New Approach SPE 128339

FRACPREDICTOR© FLOWCHARTS

HUBBERT & WILLIS CORRELATION

Start

Select Region
(ND or GOM)

Enter Water Depth Dw,

Sediment Depth Ds

Abnormal Y
Pressure Enter Pore
Zone? Pressure P

Compute Normal
Pore Pressure P

Calculate Overburden S, Vertical Matrix Stress σv= S-P

(Fp)min = P +1/3 x σv, (Fp)max = P + ½ x σv
(Fp/D)min = (Fp)min/(Dw + Ds)
(Fp/D)max = (Fp)max/(Dw + Ds)

Output (Fp)min, (Fp)max

(Fp/D)min, (Fp/D)max

END
14 J. Ajienka, F. Egbon and U. Onwuemena SPE 128339

MATTHEW & KELLY’S CORRELATION

Start

Select Region
(ND or GOM)

Enter Water Depth Dw,

Sediment Depth, Ds

Calculate Overburden S

Y
Abnormal Calculate Vertical
Pressure? Enter Pore Pressure P Matrix Stress V=S-P

Compute Normal Pore Pressure P

Determine Vertical Matrix Stress V=S-P

Determine Depth Di
under which normal
condition will yield V

Determine Matrix Stress Ratio Ki

Min Matrix Stress Vm=Ki*V,

Frac P = P+Vm, Frac
Density pf = Frac P/(Dw+Ds)

Output Ki, Frac P, Vm, pf

END
15 Deep Offshore Fracture Pressure Prediction in the Niger Delta – A New Approach SPE 128339

EATON’S CORRELATION

Start

Select Region
(ND or GOM)

Enter Water Depth Dw,

Sediment Depth Ds

Y
Abnormal
Pressure? Enter Pore Pressure P

Compute Normal
Pore Pressure P

Compute Overburden S, Vertical Matrix Stress

V=S-P, poisson ratio u, Frac P = P+(u/1-u)*V, Frac
Density pf = Frac P /(Dw+Ds)

Output u, Frac P, pf

END
16 J. Ajienka, F. Egbon and U. Onwuemena SPE 128339

GSR DEEP OFFSHORE CORRELATION

Start

Enter Water Depth Dw,

Sediment Depth Ds

Z = Dw + Ds
dLOT = 0.6308*LnZ – 6.3339

Output dLOT

END