SPE 142813

Enhanced Geomechanical Modeling with Advanced Sonic Processing to

Delineate and Evaluate Tight Gas Reservoirs
Kanitthorn Adisornsupawat, Chee Phuat Tan, Leo Anis, Aurifullah Vantala, Reayad Juman, SPE, Schlumberger,
Barry Boyce, APICO (Thailand)

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Muscat, Oman, 31 January–2 February 2011.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract

A South East Asia exploration well was drilled into a gas-bearing large anticlinal 4-way Jurassic and Triassic age continental
clastic with marine incursions. The well was designed to evaluate gas in tight sandstone with fractures. The host rock overall
had low matrix permeability. Conventional methods of gas production from tight reservoirs usually require artificial
stimulation such as some form of hydraulic fracturing. This well was no exception.

In order to optimize the hydraulic fracture design, a 1-D geomechanics study was requested to estimate hydraulic frac-ability
of the rock. A 1-D Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) was constructed and fracture breakdown pressure was estimated as an
outcome of the model. Mechanical properties are derived from logs data and calibrated against core with rock mechanics test
data. Advanced sonic processing conducted before and after the fracing which give estimated pre- and post hydraulic
minimum and maximum horizontal stress. These data was used to calibrate horizontal stresses profiles derived using poro-
elastic strain models. The shear radial profiling was carried out allowing for identifications of the existence of stress within the
rock. The advanced sonic processing also revealed the characteristic of stress anisotropy in the formation. Hydraulic fracture
design and procedure was then developed based on the results of the model.

This paper intended to present the MEM using outputs from advanced sonic processing to narrow down the uncertainty of
geomechanics parameters that are exist in the model.

Introduction

As the price of oil and gas rises, operators become more and more interested in developing higher risk unconventional
reservoirs. In this study, a tight gas sand exploration well was drilled in low matrix permeability area. In order to optimize
fracture design, a geomechanics study for rock breakdown estimation in the zone of interest was constructed for optimum frac
design and to ensure the procedure stayed within the frac-ability of the equipment and also the formation itself. Wide ranges of
data were acquired to obtain subsurface information to execute this hydraulic fracturing operation.

The use of a Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) allows all information related to the geomechanics of drilling and production to
be captured, including in-situ stresses, rock failure mechanisms, rock mechanical parameters, geologic structure, stratigraphy
and well geometry.

In the steps of 1-D MEM construction, horizontal stress estimation is always a challenge especially in this well whereby
formation pressure is unknown and no leak-off test information available, leaving considerable uncertainty in the model.
Advanced sonic measurement and interpretation can help to estimate the amount of stress anisotropy, stress orientations, and
stress magnitudes at particular reservoir intervals. These stress data together with formation integrity test values were used to
calibrate horizontal stress logs previously estimated in the MEM.
2 SPE 142813

Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) workflow

Building a Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) consists of integrating data from various sources in order to accurately describe
the formations in terms of geomechanical attributes. The basic approach to use all available data for interpretation of rock
strength, stress, pressure and understanding the key issues previously encountered in drilling. A series of steps need to be
followed in order to fully grasp the quality of data and determine the uncertainty in conclusions. Started with data audit and
quality control, bulk density, porosity and resistivity data was obtained from wireline logging while petrophysical volumes
(clay content, total porosity and effective porosity) were obtained from petrophysical interpretation. Focusing on the
compressional and shear wave velocity obtained from sonic measurement from the field measurement was affected by gas (as
expected to be a gas well). The gas correction for sonic curves was then conducted and the result shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Crossplot for sonic gas correction before (left) and after (right) gas correction applied

Next step is framework model which capture lateral variation in mechanical properties associated with geologic structure such
as formation tops and faults. This framework model will be linked with mechanical stratigraphy to characterize the response of
grain-supported and clay-supported material. The classification of mechanical stratigraphy will assist for rock mechanical
properties calculation in different facies.

The dynamic elastic properties can be derived from logs data and converted to static moduli using empirical correlation and
then calibrated against core test results. The dynamic moduli are systematically different from their static equivalents. This is
due to strain magnitude. Acoustic measurements involve a very small energy pulse which is reversible and so the dynamic
moduli are obtained entirely within a perfectly elastic regime. Core measurements of elastic moduli impose large strains
during loading, some of which are irreversible. The moduli measured are therefore not purely elastic but introduce some
additional irreversible deformation caused by friction. As a result, static strains are always larger than dynamic strains, and
static moduli are always smaller than dynamic ones. A Schlumberger proprietary correlation was used to convert dynamic to
static moduli. This result is calibrated against core and the result is shown in Figure 3.

Rock strength estimation from log measurements is fundamental to the analysis and prediction of geomechanical problems.
The conventional approach used to derive rock strength from log data is to establish correlations between rock strength and a
quantity that can be obtained from log data such as porosity, Young’s modulus, etc. In the study, unconfined compressive
strength was derived based on static Young’s modulus using Schlumberger proprietary correlation.
Core A Core B

Figure 2 Results of multi-triaxial test for core A (left) and B (right)

A series of side wall core was collected at different depth mainly for petrophysical analysis purpose. The result such as
porosity and permeability can be used to validate petrophysical evaluation. Conventional core samples were also acquired. The
core plugs were visually selected at particular depth for saturation parameters (Rw, a, m and n) and rock properties. Numbers
of core plugs with the approximate size of 2in by 1in were prepared in both horizontal and vertical direction for muti-triaxial
test. Figure 2 show the results of multi-stage triaxial test from core plugs in form of Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope. These
results were then used as calibration points for rock strength and static properties as shown in Figure 3.
SPE 142813 3

The result of core A with friction angle of 47.6 degree and linear cohesion of 4515 psi can calculate for unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) about 23,280 psi and unconfined compressive strength for core B is 25,580 psi using friction
angle of 50.1 degree and cohesion of 4643 psi. Figure 3 shows calibrated mechanical properties profile at wireline log
resolution using core test results. Track 1 show lithology with volume of clay. Track 3 is the static Young’s modulus with 2
calibration points from core. Track 4 represent friction angle. Track 5 display unconfined compressive strength. Track 6 show
static Poisson’s ratio.

XX00

Rock test results of core A

XX50

Rock test results of core B

Figure 3 Log derived of rock properties and core calibration points.

Overburden stress was conventionally calculated by integrating density over depth taking into account the gravity constant.
The reservoir pressure profile is highly uncertain. Several attempt of wireline formation tester were acquired to try to get this
information but the results were not adequate. For modeling purposes, it was assume in this study to be hydrostatic pressure
based on regional information.

When characterizing the horizontal stresses, the first step consists of determining its direction. Identifying stress direction and
magnitudes in hydraulic fracture optimization is important. Stress direction will give estimation of hydraulic fracture
orientation and stress magnitudes will govern its geometry. Knowledge of stress direction also helps in optimizing perforation
or completion design, and production planning. Several methods for identifying stress direction are available, including
borehole breakout orientation, shear sonic anisotropy and three-component VSP.

XX71
XX61

XX72
XX62

XX73
XX63

XX74
XX64

Figure 4 Borehole image log data

Wellbore breakout generally occurs in the minimum principal stress direction around the wellbore, where the stress
concentration is the largest. The borehole breakout direction in a vertical wellbore indicates the direction of the minimum
4 SPE 142813

horizontal stress. Wellbore breakout direction can be identified from image logs, or from analyzing orientated multi-arm
caliper data.

Two passes of oil based mud image log (OBMI) were run in this well for better coverage area of image data as shown in
Figure 4. There was no drilling-induced failure such as tensile and shear failures observed in borehole image data, the
minimum horizontal stress direction was then analyzed from the borehole ovalization analysis using dual caliper data. In near
vertical well, the ovalization is parallel to minimum horizontal stress direction. Dual caliper analysis shows no preferred
direction of the borehole ovalization. Based on image and dual caliper data can be implied that the stress anisotropy is small
or almost isotropic, i.e. minimum horizontal stress and maximum horizontal stress are almost equal.

Horizontal stress magnitudes, including those of in-situ stresses in rock, cannot be explicitly measured but can only be
modeled. Continuous horizontal stress calculations were performed using Poro-elastic model with tectonic strain. This
approach required overburden stress, pore pressure, Young’s modulus, Possion’s ratio and Biot’s elastic constant. Mohr-
Coulomb theory also utilized to give lower and upper boundary of horizontal stresses.

A point of formation integrity test (F.I.T) was also used as a guide for minimum horizontal stress. Figure 5 – left plot shows
continuous stress profile, the right plot shows pressure versus time of plot of FIT.

Pore Volume Compressibility (PVC) test was conducted from the core samples to narrow down of the range of Biot elastic
constant. However, different scenarios were applied to take into account of uncertainty that might occur.

FIT data
Overburden
stress

Estimated
horizontal
Stress

Figure 5 Initial horizontal stresses estimation using FIT data from cement job as a lower limit of minimum horizontal stress

Due to lack of calibration factors, horizontal stress profile was not well calibrated. The enhanced mechanical earth model
using advanced sonic processing was then conducted to calibrate the stress profile. This can be integrated with conventional
log data, in-situ and laboratory test enables the characterization of rock formation which will describe in the next section.

Enhanced Model using Advanced Sonic Processing

Open hole sonic data were obtained using Schlumberger’s advanced sonic tool (Pistre et al. 2005). Thirteen linearly alignment
sensors are separated by 6 inches between them over a spacing of 6 ft for the receiver array. Each of the 13 receiver stations
has eight azimuthal receivers located every 45 degrees around the tools, providing a total of 104 receivers for the whole
receiver array with a much better signal to noise ratio as compared to previous sonic technologies. This sonde can obtain the
compressional, shear, Stoneley and flexural-wave slowness at varying formation depth (radially) by different transmitter-
receiver geometry with monopole and dipole sources. From these measurements, it can obtain slownesses in the planes along
the wellbore axis and in the orthogonal plane of wellbore axis. In addition, dispersion (slowness versus frequency) data were
derived for slightly dispersive Stoneley waves, and highly dispersive flexural arrivals.

Quality control and Best-Delta-Time processing were performed on the acquired sonic data to ensure the accuracy of the
slowness curves along the wellbore trajectory, the slowness-time-coherences (STC) of good quality were obtained in the
applied frequency filter range as displayed in Figure 6 (track 4). The advanced processing was then conducted in order to
calibrate horizontal stress profile determined using poro-elastic stain. The processing includes: (i) shear anisotropy processing
for fast and slow shear slownesses and directions based on a four-component Alford rotation (Alford, 1986); (ii) dispersion
analysis for characterizing the type of anisotropy in the rock (iii) 3D anisotropy processing of the flexural wave for estimating
the shear moduli C44 and C55 in the vertical axis, and Stoneley wave for estimating shear modulus C66 in the horizontal axis
and (iv) dipole radial profiling was carried out for near wellbore-alteration characterization.
SPE 142813 5

XX50

XX75

Figure 6 Slowness-time-coherence (STC) and slowness-frequency-analysis (SFA) result

In dispersion analysis, slownesses in the low frequency represent the far field. In the other hand, slownesses in high frequency
area represent the near wellbore environment. As illustrate in Figure 6, track 5 represent slowness-frequency-analysis result
from XX48m to XX82m. The cross section of this plot at a particular depth, i.e. dispersion analysis, can help to identify the
stress anisotropy character of the formation itself. This technique can distinguish homogeneous isotropic and anisotropic
materials; and inhomogeneous isotropic and anisotropic materials.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 7 Typical characters of slowness frequency crossplot

The four characters of slowness-frequency-analyses is show in Figure 7: (a) in the homogeneous isotropic case, no shear wave
splitting occurs. This is a very stable situation where the shear data from field observation and model (black curve) are
overlay, (b) in the inhomogeneous isotropic case, no shear wave splitting occurs but slownesses from field measurement are
higher than model; (c) in the homogeneous anisotropic case, the fast (red curve) and slow (blue curve) shear slownesses are
different in magnitude. This is an intrinsic material anisotropy due to layering and/or fractures; and (d) in the inhomogeneous
anisotropic case, shear wave splitting exists in near wellbore. The slow shear slowness becomes faster than the fast shear
slowness towards the near wellbore area. This is a result of the differential interaction between hoop stresses and far field
6 SPE 142813

stresses which typically referred to stress-induced anisotropy. Figure 8 illustrate the dispersion plots of two depths at different
formation for study well. It can be observed that the dispersion characteristic is close to isotropic formation. This observation
is inline with the result of borehole image and dual caliper.

Figure 8 Dispersion plot for this study represent isotropic formation

It is known that borehole sonic measurements provide estimates of two formation shear moduli in anisotropic formations by a
borehole flexural logging probe. A third formation shear modulus in the plane perpendicular to the borehole axis can be
obtained from asymptode of the borehole Stoneley dispersion. The Stoneley dispersion can be obtained by processing the
monopole waveforms from a low-frequency source. Together with the two formation shear moduli obtained by the flexural
logging probe, this technique provides the three anisotropic shear moduli of the formation by the inversion of cross-dipole and
Stoneley mode acquisitions (John W. et al, 2006).

Differences in the three shear moduli outside the stress concentration annulus are related to differences in the three principal
stresses and strains in terms of an acoustoelastic coefficient referred to a local reference state (Sinha et al. 2005).
Acoustoelastic parameter (AE) in terms of far field shear moduli can determine from equation (1) when minimum horizontal
stress ( σ h ) and overburden stress ( σ v ) were estimated. Maximum horizontal stress ( σ H ) magnitude then can be determined
from equation (2).

ΔC55 − ΔC66
AE = (1)
Δσ V − Δσ h

(ΔC55 − ΔC44 )
Δσ H = Δσ h + (2)
AE

where C44, C55 and C66 denote the slow shear, fast and horizontal shear moduli respectively.

These equations can be solved for the maximum horizontal stress magnitude and acoustoelastic coefficient provided the
overburden and minimum horizontal stress magnitudes are estimated from other sources and in this case obtained from 1-D
MEM. In this study, Stress Magnitude Estimation (SME) algorithm using the three shear moduli outside the near-wellbore
altered annulus is used.

Figure 9 displays the output from advanced sonic processing. The depth track shows the minimum and maximum cross line
energy data (green shading) from the Alford rotation for the crossed-dipole waveforms. Track 1 show the mechanical
stratigraphy which represents the grain-supported (yellow) or clay-supported (dark green) material. Track 2 is the elementary
analysis of petrophysical evaluation. Track 3 show stresses. Pore pressure is represented in pink color. Overburden pressure is
displayed in red color. Green continuous curves represent horizontal stress calculated from poro-elastic approach. Short
intervals of light and dark blue curves represent the calculate stresses from three shear moduli.

Important information from advanced sonic processing such as stress characteristic of formation (isotropic in this case) and
estimated of horizontal stress magnitude is integrated in the model. This can considerably reduce uncertainty from other
existing information at initial stage.
SPE 142813 7

Three
Shear
Moduli
computed
X400 interval

Three
Shear
Moduli
X500 computed
interval

X600

Three
X700 Shear
Moduli
computed
interval

X800

Figure 9 Stress magnitude estimation using three shear moduli

Model Validation through Wellbore Stability Analysis

The best way to calibrate a MEM is to verify the predictability of the model. Using the computed rock properties and
horizontal stresses, validation of the model can be done by comparing the predicted wellbore stability with the drilling events
observations, breakout or tensile induced fractures observed on caliper or image logs. The stress concentrations around the
borehole is calculated with the MEM as input data, and the principal stresses around the borehole can then be compared to the
rock failure criteria to determine whether the borehole wall has failed or not.

Figure 10 show the model validation result. Depth track show stress anisotropy quantitative indicator bas on max and min
energy. Track 1 and 2 represent litho-column and petrophysical volume. Track 3 illustrates stress profile include estimated
horizontal stress magnitude computed from advanced sonic processing (display as interval in blue color). Track 4 show
compressional (blue) and shear (red) slowness. Track 5 represent the mud weight window including kick (brown), shear failure
or breakout (red), losses (blue) and breakdown (black) mud weights. Track 6 represent synthetic image for predicted breakout
and drilling induce fracture. Track 7 is actual borehole size log from wireline caliper as indication of borehole failure for
history matching. Track 8 to 11 represent rock properties calibrated with core points (show as dot) of elastic properties, friction
angle, unconfined compressive strength and Poisson’s ratio respectively. It can be seen that there is good consistency between
the predicted wellbore failure/non-failure and the caliper log.

Formation breakdown pressure is one of the critical parameters that can be output from the model. The rock breakdown
pressure in the zone targeted for hydraulic fracturing zone was successfully estimated.

Conclusion and Recommendations

After integrating all geomechanical related properties with the other information from the laboratory core tests, it was
concluded that:
1. Contrast (anisotropy) between the magnitudes of the maximum horizontal stress and the minimum horizontal stress is
negligible or almost isotropic as indicated from advanced sonic measurement.
2. No preferred direction can be estimated due to almost isotropic stress.
3. Pore pressure is one of uncertainties in this model. Hydrostatic pore pressure gradient was used in this study.
4. Advanced sonic processing can be utilized for broad applications include minimizing of uncertainty for stress
estimation.
5. The hydraulic fracturing in the target zones has been successfully executed based on rock breakdown estimation from
enhanced geomechanical model.
8 SPE 142813

In addition, extended leak-off tests with multiple measurement cycles was recommended. This can provide very good stress
calibration points in model validation.

XX75

XX00

Estimated
Perforation Rock
zone Breakdown
Pressure

XX25

XX50

Figure 10 MEM with petrophysical interpretation, core data, calipers and advanced sonic processing

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank to APICO (Thailand) and its partners for knowledge sharing of geological information and their
experiences in tight gas reservoir. It has been carried out with continuous support from Barry Boyce, Dwight C. Johnson, all
part of Schlumberger Data and Consulting Services, and TerraTek laboratory. The authors would like to thank them all.

References

1. Alford, R.M.: “Shear Data in the Presence of Azimuthal Anisotropy,” presented at the 56th Conference. Expanded Abstracts 1986.
2. Anke, S. W., Marit, K., Bikash, K. S., Badarinadh, V., Adrian, N. Eiliv, S., Lasse, R. and Erik, S. P.: “Enhanced Mechanical Earth
Modeling and Wellbore Stability Calculations using Advanced Sonic Measurements-A Case Study of the HP/HT Kvitebjorn Field
in the Norwegian North Sea,” SPE 109662, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conferences and Exhibition held in Anaheim,
California, U.S.A., 11-14 November 2007.
3. Blanton, T.L., Olson, J.E.: “Stress Magnitude from Logs – Effects of Tectonic Strains and Temperatures,” SPE, 1999.
4. Coates, G. R., Denoo, S. A.: “Mechanical Properties Program Using Borehole Analysis and Mohr’s Circle,” 22nd SPWLA Annual
Logging Symposium, Mexico City, June 1981.
5. Colin, M.S.: “Stress-dependent Elastic Anisotropy of Sandstone,” Geophysical Prospecting, 2002.
6. Colin, M. S., Saad, K., Kwasi, T., Arash, D. T. and Jose, A.: “Calibration the Mechanical Properties and In-Situ Stresses using
Acoustic Radial Profiles,” SPE 110089-PP, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conferences and Exhibition held in Anaheim,
California, U.S.A., 11-14 November 2007.
7. John, W., Bikash, S. and Adam, D.: “Formation Anisotropy Parameters using Borehole Sonic Data,” Transaction of SPWLA, 47th
Annual Logging Symposium, Veracruz, Mexico, 4-7 June 2006.
8. Pistre, V., Kinoshita, T., Endo, T., Schilling, K.,, Pabon, J., Sinha, B., Plona, T. and Johnson, D.: “A Modular Wireline Sonic Tool
for Measurement of 3D (Azimuthal, Radial, and Axial) Formation Acoustic Properties,” Transaction of SPWLA, 46th Annual
Logging Symposium, New Orleans, 26-29 June 2005.
SPE 142813 9

9. Plona, T., Kane, M., Alford, J., Endo, T., Walsh, J., Murray, D.: “Slowness-Frequency Projections Logs: A New QC Method for
Accurated Sonic Slowness Evaluation,” presented at SPWLA, 46th Annual Logging Symposium, 2005.
10. Sinha, B.K.: “Method for Estimation Formation In-situ Stress Magnitudes using a Sonic Borehole Tool,” United States Patent
5,838,633, 1998.
11. Sinha, B.K., Vissapragada, B., Renlie, L., Tyssee, S.: “Radial Profiling of Three Formation Shear Moduli,” 75th Annual
International Meeting, SEG Expanded Abstracts, 2005.
12. TerraTek Inc.: “The Difference between Static and Dynamic Mechanical Properties,” TerraTek Standard Publications, June 1998.