OTC-27091-MS

Wireline Microfracturing: Ultrahigh-Value Stress Measurements at Ultrahigh

Pressures in an Ultradeep Lower Tertiary Play
V.K. Mishra, Schlumberger; R. Guzman, M. Rylance, E.I. Carvajal, I. Castiblanco, BP; J. Cañas, G. Garcia, H.
Dumont, N. Rubio, A. Kayo, and S. Alatrach, Schlumberger

Copyright 2016, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 2–5 May 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC 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 Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference 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 OTC copyright.

Abstract
The measurement of geomechanical properties of reservoir rock and caprock for completion optimization,
enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and disposal/storage of any kind is becoming an integral and key aspect
of asset evaluation and appraisal. One of the most important of these characteristics is an in-situ
evaluation of the magnitude and variation of the minimum in-situ stress, the measurement of which is
critical for geomechanical modelling and thereby a range of applications such as well construction,
caprock integrity, and completion optimization.
A wireline formation testing (WFT) tool is a common approach for obtaining direct measurements of
these stresses at a range of depths. This process is referred to as microfracturing and is most typically
performed in an openhole environment. Typical toolstrings consist of a straddle packer arrangement, a
pumping mechanism, gamma ray for accurate depth correlation, a motorized valve/manifold
arrangement, and pressure/temperature gauges. To perform a stress test, a specific interval of the
wellbore is isolated by inflating the straddle packers. The interval is then pressurized by incrementally
pumping fluid until a tensile fracture has been initiated. In an open hole, the fracture will initiate and
propagate normal to the minimum stress at the wellbore and multiple injection and falloff cycles are
subsequently performed to ensure fracture growth beyond the influence of the hoop stress regime. The
data are then analysed to determine fracture initiation, reopening, propagation and closure pressures.
Additionally, it may be possible to approximate fracture orientation, if an image log is available.
This paper describes the process of obtaining minimum in-situ stress measurements using a WFT and
advanced integrated stress analysis (ISA) process, in an ultradeep reservoir at ultrahigh pressures.
Lessons learned and best practices are highlighted along with their importance for efficient job execution.
The integrated geomechanical analysis covers subsequent generation of a calibrated stress model with
minimum horizontal stress measured during microfracturing. Factors include evaluation of the stress
contrast in the target formations and evaluation of the overburden gradient and mechanics for
microfracturing job design for future operations (breakdown pressure) and lessons learned such as
station selection, backup packer availability, and influence of stress cage material on breakdown, to name
but a few.
Obtaining accurate knowledge of in-situ minimum stress values, based on actual measurements, is a
key step on the road to effective execution, and the earlier that this is achieved, the more efficient the
results of any development. This paper summarises the successful application of the WFT approach in
delivering such data under extremely harsh depth and pressure conditions, but resulting in a
measurement from which numerous subdisciplines can conduct their decision making and design.
2 OTC-27091-MS

Introduction
Exploration and development planning of ultrahigh-pressure and ultradeep reservoirs such as lower
Tertiary (Paleogene) formations can be extremely challenging. The costs that can be incurred, due to
uncertainties of the rock/stress properties, can be substantial; because of the very high costs of drilling
and completion operations. Direct measurement of the in-situ stress is one of the most critical parameters
for several applications in the petroleum industry, and one of the most important of these measurements
is the magnitude and the variation of the minimum in-situ stress (Rylance 2013). The minimum horizontal
stress is critical for accurate geomechanical modelling and thereby a range of applications such as well
construction, cap-rock integrity evaluation (Mishra et al. 2011) and completion optimization studies
(Valero 2006).
During exploration, and in support of development, models of the subsurface are generally built to
characterize the stress regime both in the reservoir and in the overlying sediments. They combine
concepts and principles from geology, geophysics, petrophysics, reservoir engineering, applied
mathematics, and other disciplines to build mechanical earth models (MEMs) for solving a wide range of
applications in the petroleum industry related to geomechanical problems. To calibrate such models, it
is important that in-situ measurements are made to ensure that the model is not only qualitative but also
quantitative. For the ultradeepwater and ultrahigh-pressure reservoirs of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM)
(Paleogene), only a few measurements have been attempted due to the limitations of wellhead and
completion equipment, and no measurements at all have been taken in the deepest formations.
Typically, the only stress data available in these types of reservoirs (depths below 30,000 ft and pressures
above 20,000 psi) have been based on heavily extrapolated correlations from shallower reservoir
measurements.
A wireline formation tester (WFT) tool is typically utilised for the direct measurements of minimum in-
situ stress at different depths along a wellbore, but has never been used at these extreme conditions. A
tool that met these rigorous requirements was selected after it complied with testing qualifications. The
results presented here are a case study of the process of obtaining minimum in-situ stress measurement
using a WFT tool and advanced integrated stress analysis (ISA) conducted in an ultrahigh-pressure
offshore environment. The lessons learned through years of tool deployments and best practices
resulting from these runs are highlighted, along with their importance for efficient job execution.
The integrated geomechanical analysis covers the subsequent generation of a calibrated stress model
with minimum horizontal stresses measured during microfracturing. Factors include an evaluation of the
stress contrast in the target formations, evaluation of the overburden gradient and mechanics for
microfracturing job design for future operations (breakdown pressure), lessons learned for station
selection, and the influence of stress cage material on breakdown, to name but a few.

Wireline Microfracturing Technology

The key components of the WFT tool (see Fig. 1) for stress testing are the dual-packer module, pumpout
module, and fluid sample chambers, which are used to carry a known clean fluid for inflating the packer
elements (Malik et al. 2014). Deployed on wireline, the WFT tool configuration typically consists of two
packer modules, configured for straddling an exit port to perform the formation fracturing.
The WFT tool can be used for microfracturing in both open- and casedhole environments, but in this
paper all references that are made refer to openhole applications. The job procedure involves identifying
target depths for performing microfracturing tests in open hole. The dual-packer module of the WFT tool,
which consists of two inflatable packers straddling (packer to packer) approximately 3.2 ft of the formation
at the zone of interest, and this standard can be extended, as this distance is ideally greater than six
times openhole diameter (ASTM 1989) to avoid stress interference from the packers. Subsequently, fluid
is injected between the packers until a hydraulic fracture is created and propagated within the formation.
After the initial formation breakdown has occurred, injection is continued until the pressure stabilizes
during the fracture propagation. After stable fracture propagation has been achieved, the injection is
OTC-27091-MS 3

stopped and the pressure is allowed to decay (falloff) to a pressure level that ensures that the fracture
has closed. The pressure at which this happens is the fracture closure pressure. This cycle of
injection/propagation and falloff is repeated until the fracture is moved beyond the near-wellbore stress
and a repeat of the closure pressure is achieved (see Figs. 2 and 3). During all phases of this process,
the tool is measuring pressure with a high-resolution gauge. In theory, the fracture grows normal to the
direction of the minimum stress in near-vertical wells (up to 30). If the minimum stress is in the horizontal
direction, the fracture would propagate vertically whereas if the minimum stress (in unaltered rock) is in
the vertical direction (overburden), then the fracture would propagate horizontally.

Fig. 1—Schematic of the WFT for microfracturing.

Fig. 2— Microfracturing pressure plot with two cycles from the WFT.
4 OTC-27091-MS

LT = Limit Test
LOP = Leak-off test
FIT = Formation integrity test
FBP = Formation break-down pressure
FPP = Fracture propagation pressure
ISIP = Instantaneous shut in pressure
FCP = Fracture closure pressure

Volume
Time

(after Gaarenstroom et al., 1993)

Fig. 3—Microfracturing cycle and pressure nomenclature.

Challenges in Ultradeepwater Reservoirs

Exploration and development planning of ultrahigh pressure and ultradeep reservoirs such as the lower
Tertiary (Paleogene) formations of GOM are extremely challenging, but the industry is gradually moving
towards developing the next frontier in the GOM with several discoveries having been made over the last
decade. The costs that are associated with uncertainties of the rock mechanical and stress properties in
these formations can be substantial due to the very high cost of the drilling and completion processes.
Furthermore, development wells in many of these reservoirs will likely require fracturing treatments as
part of the completion to yield optimal/economic production rates. One of the key parameters for effective
fracturing design, is understanding of the minimum in-situ stress and its variation with depth. Stress-
state understanding is key to determining how, when, where, and in what way a rock will fracture and the
impact that this will subsequently have on production and economical behaviour. Clearly then, WFT
microfracturing tests could allow for the required stress measurements to be obtained in an openhole
environment as long as such tools were suitable for these ultrahigh-pressure environments (i.e., up to
30,000 psi). Therefore, through collaboration between an operator and a service provider, it was decided
to consider deployment of newly developed tools to obtain in-situ rock minimum stresses. From a value
of information perspective, such data could not only be used for the stimulation design, but also for
subsequent calibration of acoustic data to obtain a continuous stress profile along the reservoir section.
The wireline microfracturing test was considered the only viable methodology to obtain these
measurements at these depths and pressures.
Acquiring standard wireline information in ultrahigh pressure wells requires suitable tool configuration,
qualification, detailed job design, and a complex set of rules and procedures that include toolstring
maintenance, setup, and cable preparation selection, among many other aspects. Acquiring cyclic stress
test data adds further complexity to these operations because these tests bring crucial components of
the toolstring, such as elastomers and mandrels, close to their operational limits. Preparation to perform
fracturing of the GOM’s very deep formations at extreme pressure conditions using a wireline tool has
taken several years and is still ongoing. The process so far has comprised multiple tool improvements
such as customized packer design, prototype testing at engineering facilities, and improvement on both
maximum pressure differential and autoretract mechanism (ARM) ratings. Key components of the job
OTC-27091-MS 5

planning involve considerations of operational safety, minimizing risk of fishing and determining the
maximum differential pressure that can be safely applied (Chardac et al. 2005).

Wireline Microfracturing Example from the Gulf of Mexico

During the planning phase of a deepwater appraisal well in the GOM, it was determined that the well
would be an excellent candidate for deployment of microfracturing measurement because there was a
pressing need for a suite of in-situ stress measurements within the formation in question. The main
objectives of the microfracturing treatment were to determine the in-situ stresses of a sequence of sand
and shale layers within an extensive Paleogene section. The in-situ closure stress and fracture initiation
and propagation pressures were required to assist the well completion design, assess likely fracture
geometries, and to make it possible to perform an extensive suite of geomechanical modelling work.
Several steps and precautions are typically taken to maximize the potential chances of success for
this type of operation:

- The solids and loss control material (LCM) loadings present in the drilling mud (at the time of
the operations) are minimized to reduce the risk of the tool plugging.
- The availability of real-time data streaming (to onshore locations) is essential so that
immediate interpretation and decision making can be performed during the treatment.
- Apposite selection of tools and packers is key to operational success. New-generation
packers have improved performance characteristics and allowable differentials can exceed
5,000 psi in 8.5-in. open hole.
- Sufficient volume should be pumped to build wellbore pressure within the test interval to
overcome hoop stress. Analysis of pressure transient behaviours in real-time using a range
of plots [e.g. log-log, square root (SQRT), and G-function] is a very powerful capability. The
number of pressure cycles and management of differential limitations are carefully
determined during job execution until a positive fracture breakdown can be obtained.

The selection of the intervals that were planned to be tested was primarily based on the specific data
needs for intervals within the sequence. However, multiple additional considerations of variables such
as borehole shape/rugosity, rock quality, shale and silt content as well as the presence or absence of
laminations, and possible presence of drilling-induced fractures weighed on the decision to inflate the
packers at certain depths. Once on depth, for this particular deployment, borehole fluid from the mud
column was used to inflate the packer elements. The presence of solids in the mud was considered a
risk factor and therefore, in preparation for the operation, specific actions were taken during drilling to
reduce the solids content of the mud across the openhole section.
Seven discrete microfracturing stations were performed. In three stations, no breakdown was
achieved despite injection at the maximum differential pressure. In four stations, successful formation
breakdown was achieved and was followed by injection falloff cycles giving very valuable in-situ stress
results.
During the prejob planning phase, the initial pressure differential limit to be used was 3,800 psi,
although there was room to augment this if required. Further increments to this differential would be
subject to a formal decision process and consideration of the risk of packer burst. During execution, it
became apparent that the 3,800 psi differential was not enough to create a fracture on the first two
stations (see Fig. 4). The maximum rating was initially increased to 4,000 psi for station 3, but again with
no fracture created. However, the data were useful, as valuable information such as leakoff pressure
could be extracted. During all of these operations, the key was to maintain control of pressure limits
without causing packer failure (30,000-psi limit) all of which were strictly adhered to.
6 OTC-27091-MS

Fig. 4—Pressure plot with high differential pressures but no breakdown.

The absolute maximum differential of 4,500 psi was then attempted in station 4 and successfully
achieved a fracture at pressures above 29,000 psi. Three subsequent stations successfully created
fractures at pressures between 1,200 and 3,000 psi above the hydrostatic pressure.
Fig. 5 shows the sequence of operations performed at one station where multiple cycles were
performed. On the first cycle, a formation breakdown is achieved, followed by fracture propagation and
a falloff, and this sequence constitutes the first cycle. Subsequent cycles are performed after the first
one, with reopening pressure, propagation, and falloff. Some intervals may not fracture on the first
attempt, especially very deep and hard shales; subsequent attempts and even moving the packer
elements to inject fluid into a previously stressed (by packer element) section can help in achieving this
fracture initiation while maintaining the pressures below the operating limits. Occasionally, because of
in-situ factors, the fracture may not be initiated over an interval even after repeated pressure cycles, and
a decision must be taken that enough attempts have been made and it would be more efficient to move
to a higher interval to achieve a successful fracture (Pedroso et al. 2008).
Sufficient time to achieve successful packer deflation, after each successive station, was another
aspect to highlight from this operation. Although under more benign conditions, the elastomer contracts
by itself when the deflation valve is open, often higher pressures and temperatures make this process
slow. In conditions up to 25,000 psi, the tools can be equipped with ARMs to assist the packer recovering
its shape after deflation. In the case of the well in question, no ARM was fitted to the tool because the
well pressure conditions exceeded 25,000 psi and therefore the deflation of the packer was achieved by
slowly relieving small volumes of fluid from the elements. This operation highlighted the need for an ARM
with higher rating and, as a result, current engineering efforts have been put in place to develop such
capabilities and decrease the risk of stuck tools.
OTC-27091-MS 7

Fig. 5—Successful microfracturing station with four injection-falloff cycles.

Microfracturing Analysis
The following sections address some of the specifics of the GOM microfracturing operation.

Closure Pressure Determination

The main methods used for closure pressure estimation are the SQRT method and the G-function
method. The plot in Fig. 6 demonstrates a closure pressure estimation using the SQRT method, in which
two slopes are drawn before and after the closure on the pressure versus SQRT time curve, and the
intersection represents the closure pressure.

Fig. 6—Closure pressure determination with SQRT method.

8 OTC-27091-MS

Reconciliation Plot
The reconciliation plot groups all of the different pressure estimates obtained from the varying
interpretations [e.g., breakdown, reopening, propagation, closure, and instantaneous shut-in pressure
(ISIP)] on the same plot (Fig. 7). This simple side-by-side comparison, cycle after cycle, can be used to
visualize results and ensure that stable and consistent results are being achieved at a given test station.

Fig. 7—Multicycle reconciliation plot for one of the microfracturing stations.

Stress Characterization
The integrated stress analysis is a workflow that integrates borehole imaging and advanced acoustic
processing to independently derive three important geomechanics-related benchmarks, namely the
stress regime, maximum and minimum principal stress magnitudes and their direction (Donald et al.,
2015). These independently derived stress parameters help calibrate a range of geomechanical models
(Gland et. al. 2015, Sinha et al. 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008).
For a linear elastic medium, Hooke’s law provides the necessary relationship between the stress (σ)
and strain (ε) tensors (Mavko et al. 2003).
=

0 0 0
0 0 0
⎛ ⎞
0 0 0
=⎜ ⎟
⎜ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎟
0 0 0 0 0
⎝ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎠

Modern advanced acoustic measurements are capable of recording axial, radial, and azimuthal
waveforms, thereby characterizing the near wellbore as well as the far field (Pistre et al. 2005). Acoustic
slownesses from the crossed-dipoles can yield the shear moduli and from the slow and fast
dipoles, respectively, as well as the cross-sectional shear slowness derived from Stoneley .
Radial variations in these three shear moduli can also be related back to the three principal stresses
(Pistre et al. 2009). By combining those shear moduli with the acousto-elastic coefficient (AE), which can
be determined independently from radial profile of the shear slowness from the sandface into the far field,
OTC-27091-MS 9

and using the nonlinear elastic stress model described in full by Lei et al., 2012 and Donald, and Prioul,
2015, we can determine the principal stresses.
Acoustics can also be used in the planning and design of microfracturing operations to estimate the
fracture initiation pressure required (and thereby the tool differentials). ISA can provide an outline
estimate for both and that can subsequently provide an estimate for in a vertical well, as follows:
=3 − − −

Pf = Estimated fracture initiation pressure (psi)

h = Minimum horizontal stress (psi)
H = Maximum horizontal stress (psi)
Pp = Pore pressure (psi)
T = Tensile strength (psi)

The objective of this evaluation was to investigate the stresses in the Lower Tertiary sands in the case
study well area in the GOM. The stress characterization of this well will play a very important role in
better understanding of how the stresses can impact the well completion.
This well stress characterization workflow includes the following (Fig. 8): a) quality control of all the
available data; b) creation of a 1D MEM with a consistent description of pore pressure, in-situ stresses
and rock mechanical properties calibrated using microfracturing closure and breakdown pressures,
formation pressure, and core data; c) ISA using advanced workflows for the calculation of the horizontal
stress magnitudes, stress regime, and stress direction and the consistency check and validation of the
results; and d) the integration of the 1D MEM with the field measurements, events, and ISA results
(Donald et al. 2013).
The well stress characterization model should be consistent with the closure and breakdown pressures
from the microfracturing test analysis, drilling events (losses), geomechanical model and horizontal stress
magnitudes, stress regime, and stress direction inverted from sonic data in zones with evidences of
stress-induced anisotropy (Lei et al. 2012; Sun and Prioul 2010).

Fig. 8—Workflow stress characterization for the case study well.

10 OTC-27091-MS

Overburden and Minimum Horizontal Stress

The most likely overburden gradient value at the selected stations of interest varies from just 0.87 to
0.89 psi/ft (16.8 to 17.15 ppg). Sensitivity analysis was performed on overburden value to examine the
potential impact on horizontal stress values. There was a variation of 10% in overburden results in just
200 psi of difference in the minimum horizontal stress values. Table 1 summarizes of the overburden
gradient by station interval.

Overburden Overburden
Stations Gradient Gradient
(psi/ft) (ppg)
Stations 1 to 3 0.87 to 0.88 16.80 to 16.90
Stations 3 to 5 0.88 16.90 to 17.00
Stations 5 to 7 0.88 to 0.89 17.00 to 17.14

Table 1—Overburden gradient summary by station intervals.

The minimum horizontal stress model that was created estimates the closure pressure gradients quite
well, when compared to the actual data from the microfracturing analysis. This match is reasonable,
apart from station 7, which was considered more representative of the near-wellbore stress than the far-
field stress (Fig. 9). The minimum horizontal stress model was also consistent with the minimum
horizontal stress magnitude inverted from the sonic data across four intervals and with stress-induced
anisotropy along the station 7 layer.

WFT Closure
Pressure
Measurement

ISA Integrated
Stress Analysis
Derived Values

Fig. 9—Case study well pore pressure stresses.

OTC-27091-MS 11

Stress Regime and Stress Ratios

The estimated stress regime classification (Andersen 1951) in this well location within the Lower
Tertiary is normal (i.e., σv > σHmax > σhmin), as shown in Fig. 9. The horizontal stress ratio from this analysis
is no higher than 1%, indicating very low horizontal stress anisotropy (σHmax/σhmin ~ 1%). This ratio was
confirmed with sonic inversion, and the vertical to minimum horizontal stress relation (σv/σhmin) varies from
0.93 to 0.98.

Stress Direction
Calculations based on the fast shear azimuth analysis in zones with stress-induced anisotropy indicate
that the maximum horizontal stress azimuth ranges from NE10° to NE20° (Fig. 10), whereas the sonic
stress azimuth inversion at station 7 is consistent with the fast shear azimuth (NE11° to NE20°).

Breakdown Pressure
The breakdown pressure from microfracture testing was used to evaluate and validate the breakdown
model. Three tests agreed well. However, the microfracturing breakdown comparison at the deepest test
(station 7) is influenced by the low volume of fluid pumped. There are certainly other factors that affect
the pressure response, such as particles in the fluid (size, shape, and volume fraction), rock permeability,
and length of leakoff time before fracture initiation.

Fig. 10—Fast shear azimuth in zones with stress-induced anisotropy.

Rock Mechanical Properties

The elastic properties and strength parameters of the rock were also evaluated. Core data from a
previous well in the same area, in a deeper location, were used to establish correlations for rock
mechanical properties and to check the correlations used for this well. Table 2 summarizes the rock
mechanical properties at the depths where the tests were performed.
12 OTC-27091-MS

Static Unconfined
Dynamic Frictional
Young’s Compressive
Station Poisson’s Angle
Modulus Strength
Ratio (degrees)
(Mpsi) (psi)
1 2.4 0.22 38.5 5,230
2 3.2 0.33 36.7 3,370
3 3.3 0.2 39.5 6,197
7 3.5 0.23 41 7,500

Table 2. Rock mechanical properties at station depths.

Drilling Events and Wellbore Stability

Losses and tight spots are the main geomechanics-related events registered during drilling operations
in the sands of interest (station 1 to station 7). These events, together with mud weight (MW), equivalent
circulating density (ECD), minimum and maximum equivalent static density (ESD), and oriented
caliper/image logs, are used as calibration data for wellbore stability analysis.
The four boundaries defined in the stable mud weight window are shown in Fig. 11. The threshold for
pore pressure, or “kicks”, are shown in grey. Keeping the mud weight above the pore pressure will
eliminate risk of kicks and is always recommended if there is any uncertainty in the likelihood for
permeability or gas/kick events. The solid yellow area indicates the propensity for wide breakouts to
occur, blue is potential mud loss, and dark blue is borehole breakdown (induced fractures).

Fig. 11—Stable mud weight window. From the left, hole azimuth, Young’s modulus, stress analysis, and
wellbore stability window.
OTC-27091-MS 13

Sonic and Geomechanics

It can be shown, both experimentally and theoretically, how a velocity field can be affected by stress
concentrations and how such a velocity field influences dipole wave propagation. Based on AE theory,
such changes in the elastic wave velocities are directly caused by changes in the stress of the
propagating medium (Winkler et al. 1998; Sinha and Winkler 1999). Therefore, when sonic fast and slow
dipole flexural waveforms are measured, the AE constant can be solved independently with the
processed fast and slow shear radial variation profile (SRVP) and then formation stresses (both minimum
and maximum horizontal) can be obtained with a known AE (Sinha et al. 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009).
The far-field stress field can then be rotated to the borehole coordinate system and then directly linked
with the measured borehole SRVP for subsequent stress estimation in deviated wells (Sun and Prioul
2010).
In the well that was tested, four distinct intervals were identified with stress-induced anisotropy; the
dispersion crossover is an indicator of stress-induced anisotropy (Fig. 12). In these intervals, the
horizontal stress magnitudes and direction were inverted using N-point method. The dispersion curves
and radial profiling at every depth in these intervals were evaluated. Fig. 12 shows the dispersion curves
and radial profiling at 30,301 ft measured depth (MD) and the results for horizontal stress magnitudes
and direction.

Fig. 12—Inverted horizontal stress magnitude, stress regime, and stress direction for the case study well. From left,
dispersion curves and radial profile at 30,301 ft MD (in feet); gamma ray (in API); pore pressure, inverted horizontal
stresses, and overburden (in ppg and psi); stress regime Q factor; maximum horizontal stress azimuth and fast shear
azimuth (in degrees); hole deviation and hole azimuth (in degrees); and Q factor, maximum horizontal stress azimuth,
and stress polygon graphics.
14 OTC-27091-MS

Conclusions
A number of general and specific conclusions can be made from the application of this technique in the
particular well considered and the successful results that were obtained. These conclusions include the
following:

- The data that have been acquired from these microfracturing tests have significantly reduced
uncertainties in the geotechnical models that will guide important decisions (and investments)
in subsequent drilling, completion, and production operations.
- The use of these data, along with other mechanical properties and parameters, can help
calibrate the use of a MEM and ensure the robustness of decisions that will be based in such
models across the play.
- The detailed understanding of inter-reservoir properties that are a result of such operations
will also focus future testing and investigation to specific lithofacies that have been identified
from other logging approaches.
- The breakdown pressures that are measured during such microfracturing operations can be
used in conjunction with additional logs to derive and verify a range of addition mechanical
rock properties.
- The use of an image log, after a microfracturing operation can be used to verify the maximum
stress direction in the area if the microfracturing operation has left a discernible fracture at
the wellbore from the operation.
- The use of microfracturing also offers an advantage to conventional fracture injection with
respect to analysis because such a low-rate/low-volume injection is not substantially affected
by friction loss or wellbore storage.
- The microfracturing methodology should be part of an integral data acquisition toolkit to
obtain invaluable stress data and to verify a range of existing assumptions in these
ultradeepwater exploration and appraisal wells.
- Safe and successful execution of ultradeep, ultrahigh-pressure and high-stress
microfracturing operations can be achieved if there is diligence in planning, programming,
and execution of such operations. In the GoM the above approach has led to the successful
testing of intervals with fracture initiation pressure exceeding 29,000 psi.

Acknowledgments
We thank the BP and Schlumberger management for giving permission to present this paper. We also
acknowledge technical support from C. Babin, A. Agarwal, and W. Cantwell of Schlumberger.

References
Anderson, E.M. 1951. The Dynamics of Faulting and Dyke Formation with Applications to Britain, second. London and
Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
ASTM Annual Book of Standards. 1989. Standard Test Method for the Determination of the In Situ Stress Using the Hydraulic
Fracturing Method (Designation D 4645-87). American Society for Testing and Materials, Section 4, 4 (8): 851–856.
Chardac, O., Murray, D., Carnegie, A. J. G. et al. 2005. A Proposed Data Acquisition Program for Successful Geomechanics
Projects. Presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Kingdom of Bahrain, 11–15 March. SPE-
93182-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/93182-MS.
Donald, J.A., Gongrui, Y., Sun, H., Ramirez, A., Gomez, F. and Liang, X., 2014, Subsurface formation modeling with integrated
stress profiles. Patent Application WO2015149237, March 31, 2014
Donald, J. A. and Prioul, R. 2015, In situ calibrated velocity-to-stress transforms using shear sonic radial profiles for time-lapse
production analysis. The Leading Edge, 34 (3), 286-293.

Donald, J.A., Prioul, R., and Sinha, B. 2013. Stress Characterization in Deep Boreholes using Acoustoelasticity. In Rock
Characterisation, Modelling and Engineering Design Methods, ed. X.-T. Feng, J.A. Hudson, and F. Tan. London: CRC
Press.
OTC-27091-MS 15

Gland, N., Heidari, B. Leong, S.T., Wang, S. Sufian, A., Jones, M., Donald, J.A., Tan, W., Britton, A., Howat, A.. 2015, “Integrated
Stress and Anisotropy Analysis using Multi-Well Borehole Sonic and Image Data in the Kinabalu Field, Malaysia", Proc.
SPWLA 2015, 386, 1-13, 18th-22nd July, Long Beach, CA, USA.
Lei, T., Sinha, B.K., and Sanders, M. 2012. Estimation of Horizontal Stress Magnitudes and Stress Coefficients of Velocities
Using Borehole Sonic Data. Geophysics 77 (3): WA181–WA196. http://dx.coi.org/10.1190/geo2011-0277.1.
Malik, M., Schwartz, K., Moelhoff, K., and Mishra, V. K. 2014. Microfracturing in Tight Rocks: A Delaware Basin Case Study.
Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 1–3 April. SPE-169009-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/169009-MS.
Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., and Dvorkin, J. 2003. The Rock Physics Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mishra, V. K., Lywood, P. D., and Ayan, C. 2011. Application of Wireline Stress Testing for SAGD Caprock Integrity. Presented
at the Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, 15–17 November, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. SPE-149456-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/149456-MS.
Pedroso, C., Cañas, J. A., Holzberg, B. et al. 2008. Developments in Wireline In-Situ Rock Stress Measurements”. Presented
at Rio Oil & Gas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 15–18 September.
Pistre, V., Kinoshita, T., Endo, T. et al. 2005. A Modular Wireline Sonic Tool for Measurements of 3D (Azimuthal, Radial, and
Axial) Formation Acoustic Properties. SPWLA 46th Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, 26–29 June, New
Orleans, Louisiana, 2005.
Pistre, V., Yan, G.R., Sinha, B. et al. 2009. Determining Stress Regime and Q Factor From Sonic Data. SPWLA 50th Annual
Logging Symposium, 21–24 June.
Rylance, M. 2013. Optimising Remote Unconventional Gas Exploration. Presented at the Middle East Unconventional Gas
Conference, Muscat, Oman, 2–30 January. SPE-163987-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/163987-MS.
Sinha, B.K., Bratton, T., and Higgins, S. 2009. Estimation of Formation Horizontal Stress Magnitudes Using Radial Profiles of
Shear Slowness. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2009: 466–471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.3255798.
Sinha, B.K., Bratton, T., Cryer, J. et al. 2005. Near-Wellbore Alteration and Formation Stress Parameters Using Borehole Sonic
Data. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 9–12 October. SPE-95841-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/95841-MS.
Sinha, B. K., Vissapragada, B., Kongslien, M. et al. 2007. Estimation of Formation Stresses Using Radial Variation of the Three
Shear Moduli in a Well—A Case Study from a High-Pressure and High-Temperature Field in the Norwegian Continental
Shelf. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, USA, 11–14 November.
SPE-109842-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/109842-MS.
Sinha, B. K., Vissapragada, B., Renlie, L. et al. 2006. Radial Profiling of the Three Formation Shear Moduli and its Applications
to Well Completions. Geophysics 71 (6): E65-E77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.2335879.
Sinha, B.K., Wang, J., Kisra, S. et al. 2008. Estimation of Formation Stresses Using Borehole Sonic Data. Presented at the
SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, 25–28 May.
Sinha, B.K. and Winkler, K.W. 1999. Formation Nonlinear Constants from Sonic Measurements at two Borehole Pressures.
Geophysics 64 (6): 1890–1900. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444695.
Sun, H. and Prioul, R. 2010. Relating Shear Sonic Anisotropy Directions to Stress in Deviated Wells.. Geophysics 75 (5): D57–
D67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190.1.3481651.
Valero, H. P., Sinha, B. K., and Vissapragada, B. 2006, 384–388. Radial Profilings Integration for Optimal Well Completion
Design. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.2372474.
Winkler, K.W., Sinha, B.K., and Plona, T.J. 1998. Effects of Borehole Stress Concentrations on Dipole Measurements.
Geophysics 63 (1): 11–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444303.