Rocks Matter: Ground Truth in Geomechanics

Stress and pressure act upon every reservoir, wellbore and completion. Drilling,
production and injection processes modify these stresses and pressures, sometimes
to the operator’s detriment. Through advances in geomechanical measurements,
modeling and monitoring, E&P companies are now able to predict and mitigate the
effects of stress and pressure as they change throughout the life of their fields—
from appraisal to abandonment.

John Cook Change the stress on a rock and it deforms, depletion. But declining resource volumes and
Cambridge, England altering its volume and geometry, as well as the favorable oil prices are prompting operators to
paths of fluid flow within. The stress regime of a drill deeper, more intricate well trajectories, at
René A. Frederiksen formation can be impacted by multiple factors, the same time that new technologies are
Klaus Hasbo including rock type, depositional settings, regional extending the lives of mature fields. Operators
Hess Denmark ApS
tectonics, episodes of erosion or uplift, local therefore are becoming more mindful of
Copenhagen, Denmark
seismic disturbances and even tidal variations. geomechanics as they assess drilling and
Sidney Green The influence of such stressors is further production difficulties—especially those who
Arnis Judzis complicated by differences in rock fabric. endeavor to protect their investments in
J. Wesley Martin The manner in which formations react to expensive completions installed in high-
Roberto Suarez-Rivera changing stress is becoming a focus of increasing pressure, high-temperature, tectonically active
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA interest to E&P companies. In-situ reservoir or ultradeepwater prospects.
stresses, having reached equilibrium over Failure to appreciate the importance of geo-
Jorg Herwanger geologic time, are altered by the process of mechanics may have severe consequences.
Patrick Hooyman drilling, production and injection. If drilling- or Excessive mud loss, wellbore instability, casing
Don Lee production-induced changes in stress are not compression or shearing, reservoir compaction,
Sheila Noeth
anticipated, the challenges and costs of managing surface subsidence, sand production, fault
Colin Sayers
a prospect can far exceed an operator’s initial reactivation and loss of reservoir seal may all
Houston, Texas, USA
expectations. To characterize stress, strain and be manifestations of stress changes within
Nick Koutsabeloulis deformation in their reservoirs, E&P companies a formation.
Robert Marsden employ the discipline of geomechanics. This Some operators are forced to react to changes
Bracknell, England wide-ranging field applies solid and fluid in stress or rock fabric as they drill and produce
mechanics, engineering, geology and physics to their wells. Others are more proactive. Through
Morten G. Stage determine how rocks and the fluids they contain core testing and geomechanical modeling of rock
DONG Energy respond to force or to changes in stress, pressure strength, deformation and stress behavior, they
Hørsholm, Denmark and temperature caused by drilling, completion are engineering better wells and fields. These
and production. efforts have recently been aided by newly
Chee Phuat Tan
In the past, most drilling and production established centers of excellence for
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
departments were not particularly attuned to geomechanics in Bracknell, England, and in
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Ben Elbel, formation stresses and geomechanics; many Houston and Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Dallas; Ian Walton, Rosharon, Texas; and Smaine Zeroug, reservoirs were deemed technically straight- This article describes advances in geo-
Clamart, France. Thanks also to Hess Denmark ApS, DONG
Exploration and Production A/S, Noreco ASA, and Danoil for forward and had undergone only limited mechanics laboratory testing techniques,
contributing their North Sea case study. stress-dependent reservoir simulations and
ECLIPSE, Petrel, TerraTek, UBI (Ultrasonic Borehole Imager)
and VISAGE are marks of Schlumberger.

36 Oilfield Review
 Major
effective
stress σ1

Uniaxial compressive strength

Tensile strength Minor effective stress σ3

monitoring. Field studies performed at the
Schlumberger Geomechanics Laboratory Center
of Excellence and the Schlumberger Reservoir
Geomechanics Center of Excellence show how
this science is helping E&P companies optimize
drilling and production in increasingly
challenging reservoirs.
Stress in the Subsurface
The stresses acting on a formation can vary in
origin, magnitude and direction. Natural, in-situ
vertical stresses stem primarily from the weight
of overburden. Horizontal stresses also have a
gravitational component that may be enhanced
by tectonics, thermal effects and geological
structure. However, other factors such as litho-
logy, pore pressure and temperature influence
stress magnitude and orientation as well as the
degree to which rock responds to stress.
Stress, a measure of force acting on a given
area, is made up of normal and shear
components. Normal stress (σ) is that which is
applied perpendicular to a plane or rock surface.
Shear stress (τ) is applied along the face of the

Autumn 2007 37
 σV
σH σH
σh
σV
> In-situ stresses and principal stresses. Stresses on a cube of material
buried in the earth are given the designation σV, σH and σh, where V indicates
vertical, H indicates the direction of the larger horizontal stress, and h that of
the smaller horizontal stress. For simplicity, it is often assumed that these are
the principal stress directions, but the principal directions of stress can be
rotated significantly from these three axes. The principal stresses are
generally indicated as σ1, σ2 and σ3, in decreasing order of magnitude. When
the principal stress directions do not coincide with the vertical and horizontal
directions, there will also be shear stresses on the cube faces in the
orientation shown.
Fracture point
Elastic field
Yield point
Ductile field
Stress
Strain
> Stress-strain diagram. Rocks that undergo elastic deformation store strain
energy as their volume changes. When the applied boundary stresses are
removed, the rock returns to its original state of deformation while the strain
energy returns to its original value. With application of greater stress, rocks
undergo inelastic deformation as nonrecoverable, internal structural changes
occur (starting at the yield point), such as tensile microcracking, grain crushing
or slippage at grain boundaries. These changes result in permanent volumetric
deformation, often referred to as plastic deformation. Higher stresses
eventually cause the rock to fail (fracture point), as exemplified by crushing or
fracturing of constituent grains and cement or by mineral dissolution.
38
plane. Mathematically, there is one orientation of
orthogonal axes defining the stress directions for
which the shear stresses are zero. That
orientation defines the principal axes of stress,
wherein applied stresses are strictly normal.
In situ, these orthogonal principal axes are
often assumed to be oriented vertically and
horizontally (left); however, this condition is
often not the case. The magnitude and
orientation of stresses in the earth change with
the structural dip of the formation, which can
rotate the orientation of principal stresses from
the vertical and horizontal orientations, as can
the presence of faults, salt diapirs, mountains or
other complex structures.1
In the earth, where deformation is restricted,
the three stress components are linked, and any
change of stress in one direction is accompanied
by changes in stress along the orthogonal axes.
For example, when continued deposition brings
about greater burial depths, the resulting
increase in overburden vertical stress can
generate changes in horizontal stress, depending
on the degree to which the formations are able to
spread out laterally. This response is generally
constrained by the presence of adjacent
formations that confine the rock deformation.
Differences in formation properties also impose
contrasts in stresses between adjacent litho-
logies. Furthermore, formation anisotropy can
result in greater lateral stress in one direction
than in another.
A body of rock responds to applied stress
through various modes of strain, or deformation,
causing changes in volume and shape, often
accompanied by changes in rock properties
(left). The spectrum of deformation ranges from
reversible, or elastic deformation, to permanent,
or plastic deformation, before eventually ending
in failure of the rock. Deformation caused by
compression, tension or shear can result in
compaction, extension, translation or rotation,
eventually ending in failure by shearing,
fracturing or faulting. In addition to the
magnitude of stress applied, a rock’s response to
stress depends largely on rock type, cementation,
porosity and burial depth. In sandstones, the
size, shape and area of contact points between
individual rock grains influence deformation. In
limestones, the shape and strength of the
skeletal rock framework influence deformation.2
Small increases in stress generally cause a
small strain from which the rock may recover.
Oilfield Review
Beyond a certain point, it will deform plastically
or fail. The mode of deformation and failure is
dictated by the relationship between changes in
maximum and minimum stresses (right). This
relationship is called a stress path.3 In petroleum
geomechanics, the stress path (K) is
conventionally the ratio of change in effective
minimum horizontal stress to the change in
effective vertical, or overburden, stress from
initial reservoir conditions during fluid
pressure drawdown, more simply expressed as
K = Δσ3/Δσ1. This can also be expressed in terms
of changes of shear stress (Q) and changes in
mean stress (P' ), as shown on the P'- Q diagram.4
A sufficiently low stress-path value implies
that the rock will fail in shear, generating a shear
plane. Shear strength increases as lateral
confining stress on the rock increases. Where
larger stress-path values are seen, the rock
undergoes compaction or reduction in porosity.
This is most common in soft, high-porosity rocks
such as chalk, porous sands and diatomite.5
When subjected to differential stresses, other
rocks, such as salts, will tend to flow over time to
reduce shear stresses and move towards
hydrostatic stress states.
To manage reservoirs, oil and gas companies
must contend with a variety of downhole
stressors—not all of which are caused by over-
burden or tectonics. Pore pressure, temperature
differences and chemical interactions can also
affect localized perturbations in stress orienta-
tion and magnitude.
Stress and pore pressure are intrinsically
linked.6 In formation pore spaces, stress is
transmitted to liquids or gases in the form of
pressure. The magnitude of pressure applied in
any one direction is the same for all directions. If
a fluid is compressed, it reacts by exerting an
equal and opposite pressure outwards. Under
pressure, pore fluids often take up some of the
stress imposed on a formation. Thus pore
1. Addis MA: “The Stress-Depletion Response of
Reservoirs,” paper SPE 38720, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, October 5–8, 1997.
2. Geertsma J: “Land Subsidence Above Compacting Oil
and Gas Reservoirs,” paper SPE 3730, presented at
SPE-AIME European Spring Meeting, Amsterdam,
May 16–18, 1972.
3. For more on stress paths: Crawford BR and Yale DP:
“Constitutive Modeling of Deformation and Permeability:
Relationships between Critical State and
Micromechanics,” paper SPE/ISRM 78189, presented at
the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference, Irving,
Texas, October 20–23, 2002.
Rhett DW and Teufel LW: “Effect of Reservoir Stress
Path on Compressibility and Permeability of
Sandstones,” paper SPE 24756, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Washington, DC, October 4–7, 1992.
Autumn 2007
Shear stress (Q): σ1 – σ3
Impossible
states
re
failu
ear
Sh
Dilation
ca
ace
iti
failure sile
Cr
surf
Ten
> Distortion and failure. Distinct modes of distortion and failure can be plotted
as a function of shear stress (Q) and mean effective stress (P' ). At relatively
low P' and high Q, rock failure typically occurs as localized shear along a
plane oriented at an angle to the principal stress axes. At relatively high P'
and low Q, rocks may undergo compaction or pore collapse. (Adapted from
Scott, reference 3.)
pressure is an important component of the net
stress applied to a body of rock.
Temperature is yet another contributor to the
overall stress regime. Temperature differences
between drilling fluids and downhole formations
will result in heat transfer between the two
media. Given the low thermal conductivity of
most rocks, these temperature variations
generate large strain gradients that may cause
severe fracturing and stress realignments. Since
thermal expansion of water in the pore space is
much higher than that in the rock matrix, the
heat transferred into a formation by drilling
fluid will generate a larger volume expansion of
the pore fluid and a corresponding increase in
pore pressure.7
Thermal expansion of the rock matrix under
constrained conditions will generate further
Scott TE: “The Effects of Stress Paths on Acoustic
Velocities and 4D Seismic Imaging,” The Leading Edge 26,
no. 5 (May 2007): 602–608.
Teufel LW, Rhett DW and Farrell HE: “Effect of Reservoir
Depletion and Pore Pressure Drawdown on In-Situ
Stress and Deformation in the Ekofisk Field, North Sea,”
Proceedings of the 32nd US Rock Mechanics
Symposium. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: A.A. Balkema
(1991): 63–72.
4. A relationship exists between the stress path, shear
stress and mean stress. While the stress path (K) can
be expressed as K = Δσ3/Δσ1, shear stress (Q) is
expressed as (Q = σ1-σ3), and effective mean stress (P' )
is [P' = (σ1+σ2+σ3)/3]. In laboratory uniaxial stress tests,
in which the minimum and intermediate principal stresses
are considered equal (σ2 = σ3), the slope η in the P'-Q
plane corresponding to the stress path K is given by this
equation, following Crawford and Yale (reference 3):
e
surfac Comp
a
Duc ctio
n
tile sur
e fai fac
lin lu re e
te s
ta
ls
ur
fac
Compaction
e
Near-elastic region
Mean effective stress (P'): (σ1 + σ2 + σ3) / 3
stress. A reduction in effective mud support is
often associated with an increase in pore
pressure. This reduction, together with the
thermal matrix expansion, will lead to a less
stable wellbore condition. Conversely, cooling
the formation may result in a more stable
condition because of decreased pore pressure
and tangential stress. The reduction of tangen-
tial stress may also lead to a lower hydraulic
fracture gradient, and, in extreme cases, the
tangential stress will become negative and
initiate hydraulic fracture.
Stress and pore pressure can also be affected
by interactions between rock and drilling fluid.
Shales, which account for the majority of drilled
sections in most wells, are particularly sensitive
to drilling fluids. Somewhat porous and usually
saturated with formation water, these rocks may
be susceptible to chemical reactions with certain
5. Doornhof D, Kristiansen TG, Nagel NB, Pattillo PD and
Sayers C: “Compaction and Subsidence,” Oilfield
Review 18, no. 3 (Autumn 2006): 50–68.
6. Addis, reference 1.
7. Choi SK and Tan CP: “Modeling of Effects of Drilling Fluid
Temperature on Wellbore Stability,” Proceedings,
SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering
Symposium, Trondheim, Norway (July 8–10, 1998):
471–477.
Li X, Cui L and Roegiers J: “Thermoporoelastic Analysis
for Inclined Borehole Stability,” Proceedings, SPE/ISRM
Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering Symposium,
Trondheim, Norway (July 8–10, 1998): 443–452.
39
 σh = 2,000 psi
σH = 3,000 psi σH = 3,000 psi
Wellbore
σh = 2,000 psi
Hoop stress, psi
2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
> Plan view of hoop stresses surrounding a vertical wellbore. In this model,
pore pressure and wellbore pressure are equal, while maximum and minimum
effective stresses within the formation equal 2,000 psi and 3,000 psi [13.8 and
20.7 MPa], respectively. However, hoop stress, which varies as a function of
radius and azimuth, is strongly compressive along the azimuth aligned with
minimum horizontal stress (σh) (red shading above and below the wellbore),
where it reaches almost 7,000 psi [48.3 MPa]. Wellbore failure will be more
likely to occur along this axis. (Adapted from Sayers et al, reference 9.)
drilling fluids. When a formation is drilled with Changes in Stress
an incompatible fluid, the invading filtrate may Drilling and production activities affect local
cause the shale to swell, which can lead to stress regimes. Problems encountered during
weakening of the rock and wellbore instability. drilling may portend difficulties encountered
Shales may also be susceptible to time- subsequently during the production phase.
dependent changes in effective mud support Changes in stress may result in rock failure that
caused by differences between the mud pressure causes wellbore instability during drilling. These
and pore-fluid pressure, or between drilling fluid changes may later lead to sand production once
salinity and formation salinity.8 Furthermore, the well has been completed. Other activities
volume changes in shales arising from inter- during the life of a field can cause pore pressure
actions between shale and drilling fluid can and temperature changes, which can modify
locally disturb the stress orientation and stresses acting farther from the wellbore. Stress
magnitude in a borehole. changes affect not only the reservoir but also
Thus, while local and regional tectonic adjacent formations.
stresses play a major role in rock deformation, Drilling activity perturbs the initial equilib-
other downhole factors, such as pore pressure, rium of stresses in the near-wellbore region. As
mud weight and downhole pressure fluctuations, a cylindrical volume of rock is excavated
temperature and chemistry must also be through drilling, the stresses formerly exerted
considered for their distinctive contributions to on that volume must instead be transferred to
the local stress-deformation continuum. Their the surrounding formation. This process creates
effects may also be tempered by textural proper- tangential, or hoop stresses, which must be
ties unique to the local lithology, such as the size borne by the rock surrounding the borehole.
and distribution of framework grains and pores, These wellbore stresses are a function of mud
mineralogy and the composition of diagenetic weight, wellbore inclination, formation dip
cements. Given the variety of reactions to stress, angle and azimuth, and the magnitude and
it is crucial for an operator to know as much as orientation of far-field stresses (σV, σH and σh).
possible about the rock surrounding a wellbore Hoop stress varies strongly as a function of
and the conditions to which it will be subjected.
borehole radius and azimuth.9 Furthermore, it
can far exceed σH (left).
In most conventional drilling operations,
drillers use hydraulic pressure from drilling fluid
as a substitute for the mechanical support that is
lost through the cylindrical volume of rock
excavated while drilling a wellbore. They essen-
tially replace a cylinder of rock with a cylinder of
drilling fluid. However, mud pressure is uniform
in all directions, and cannot balance against
oriented shear stresses in a formation. As stress
is redistributed around the wall of the wellbore,
shear stresses can exceed rock strength. When this
happens, the wellbore will deform or fail entirely.
Typical examples of geomechanics-related
drilling problems include wellbore instability and
fracturing of the formation. Ramifications include
financial loss resulting from lost circulation,
kicks, stuck pipe, additional casing strings,
sidetracks and even abandonment. To sustain
wellbore stability, operators must develop drilling
and well construction plans that consider stress
magnitude and direction, mud weight, trajectory
and pore pressure before, during and after a well
is drilled.
Drillers manage pressures imposed by mud
weight to avoid wellbore stability problems.
Their control of wellbore hydraulics reflects
a petroleum engineering approach to a
geomechanical problem. During drilling, well-
bores can be compromised through a variety of
mud-induced modes of failure:10
• Tensile failure occurs by increasing mud pres-
sure until it causes the wellbore wall to go into
tension and eventually to exceed the rock’s
tensile strength. This fractures the rock along
a plane perpendicular to the direction of mini-
mum stress, often resulting in lost circulation.
• Compressive failure may be caused by mud
weight that is too low or too high. In either
case, the formation caves in or spalls off, pro-
ducing borehole damage and breakouts (next
page, top). Unless the wellbore is properly
cleaned out, the accumulation of breakout
debris can lead to stuck pipe as the borehole
packs off or collapses.
• Shear displacement takes place when the mud
pressure is high enough to reopen existing
fractures that the wellbore has intersected. As
a fracture is opened, stresses along the open-
ing are temporarily relieved, allowing opposing
faces of the fracture to shear, creating a small
but potentially dangerous dislocation along
the wellbore.
Wellbore stability is further affected by
structural factors, such as the interplay between
wellbore inclination, formation dip and

40 Oilfield Review
directional variations in strength between and
along formation bedding planes (below right). It
is not unusual for some degree of wellbore failure
to occur in vertical wells that encounter steeply
dipping shales, or inclined wells that intersect
shale bedding planes at low angles. Such failures
are initiated by low shear and tensile strength
along planes of weakness in shales.11
5,320
The issue of strength, or a rock’s capacity to
withstand stress, points to an important under-
lying influence on deformation and failure: that
5,321
of rock fabric.12 Rock fabric can dictate whether
a given amount of stress will cause a rock to
deform or to completely fail, and can influence
the extent and orientation of fractures or 5,322

Depth, ft
breakouts in a wellbore. Thus, although borehole
breakout is typically assumed to be oriented
along the axis of least stress, the bedding, 5,323
cementation, mineralogy and grain size of a rock
may actually redirect the course of a breakout
along the rock’s weakest points. 5,324
For help in anticipating and circumventing
5
problems such as those described above, some

8. Gazaniol D, Forsans T, Boisson MJF and Piau JM: 5,325 0

“Wellbore Failure Mechanisms in Shales: Prediction
and Prevention,” paper SPE 28851, presented at the –5
SPE European Petroleum Conference, London, 0 –5
October 25–27, 1994. 5
Mody FK and Hale AH: “A Borehole Stability Model to Radius, in.
Couple the Mechanics and Chemistry of Drilling Fluid
Interaction,” in Proceedings, SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam (February 22–25, 1993): 473–490.
Tan CP, Rahman SS, Richards BG and Mody FK: > Borehole breakout. Results from a UBI Ultrasonic Borehole Imager logging
“Integrated Approach to Drilling Fluid Optimization for
Efficient Shale Instability Management,” paper SPE tool show the extent of stress-related damage in a wellbore. In isotropic or
48875, presented at the SPE International Oil and Gas transversely isotropic rock, where rock properties do not change along the
Conference and Exhibition, Beijing, November 2–6, 1998. plane of the wellbore, such damage is generally aligned along a plane of
van Oort E, Hale AH and Mody FK: “Manipulation of least horizontal stress.
Coupled Osmotic Flows for Stabilization of Shales
Exposed to Water-Based Drilling Fluids,” paper SPE
30499, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, October 22–25, 1995.
9. Sayers CM, Kisra S, Tagbor K, Dahi Taleghani A and
Adachi J: “Calibrating the Mechanical Properties and
In-Situ Stresses Using Acoustic Radial Profiles,” paper
SPE 110089-PP, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, USA,
November 11–14, 2007.
10. For more on wellbore stability problems: Addis T, Last N,
Boulter D, Roca-Ramisa L and Plumb D: “The Quest for
Borehole Stability in the Cusiana Field, Colombia,”
Oilfield Review 5, no. 2 & 3 (April/July 1993): 33–43.
11. Aoki T, Tan CP and Bamford WE: “Stability Analysis of
Inclined Wellbores in Saturated Anisotropic Shales,”
in Siriwardane HJ and Zaman MM (eds): Computer
Methods and Advances in Geomechanics: Proceedings
of the Eighth International Conference on Computer
Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Morgantown,
West Virginia, USA, May 22–28, 1994. Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: A.A. Balkema (1994): 2025–2030.
Yamamoto K, Shioya Y, Matsunaga TY, Kikuchi S and
Tantawi I: “A Mechanical Model of Shale Instability
Problems Offshore Abu Dhabi,” paper SPE 78494,
presented at the 10th Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi,
UAE, October 13–16, 2002. > Formation effects on wellbore stability. Structural and stratigraphic factors
12. Rock fabric is a term that loosely encompasses the can combine to cause well damage. Here, incompetent beds overlie a stronger
mineral content, size, shape, orientation and
cementation of component grains within a rock, formation near the crest of a structure; relative movement results in damaged
including their overall arrangement into microscopic cement and collapsed casing.
laminations or larger beds.

Autumn 2007 41
 15,000
12,000
Well pressure, psi
ion
9,000 plet
De
Safe
drawdown
6,000
3,000
0 may eventually compact, leaving surrounding,
0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000
Reservoir pressure, psi
> Stress changes induced by production. As a field depletes, the magnitude
of stresses may alter drastically. Under such conditions, a completion or
perforation originally oriented in the most stable direction at the onset of
production may subsequently become unstable and fail as production
proceeds. Here, the horizontal perforation will permit the greatest safe
drawdown (blue curve) and solids-free production. However, as the field
depletes and stresses change, this previously stable perforation will
collapse and the vertical perforation will assume a greater role in
production, though safe drawdown pressure has decreased (red curve).
(Adapted from Marsden, reference 18.)
operators are turning to geomechanics experts at and rotation, plastic deformation, cement
the Schlumberger Center of Excellence for Pore breakage at grain contacts, or activation of
Pressure Prediction and Wellbore Stability existing fractures.14
Analysis. Located in Houston, the geomechanics On a larger scale, production-induced stress
experts in this group have a global reach, and changes on the rock framework can lead to pore
support operators around the world. This collapse and compaction of the reservoir.15
interdisciplinary team is actively involved in (Compaction is not always a problem, however—
helping clients mitigate risk in drilling, compaction drive has helped to pressurize oil in
completing and producing wells in difficult some reservoirs, thereby increasing production
geomechanical environments, such as deepwater rates and improving ultimate recovery.)16 As a
exploration, subsalt drilling, unconventional gas result, operators have had to contend with
and unconsolidated reservoirs. surface subsidence problems, deformation or
shearing of wellbore tubulars and buckling of
Beyond the Wellbore completion components. Other effects range
Geomechanical influences can extend past the from reduction of porosity and permeability to
borehole, into the reservoir and beyond—though fault reactivation, formation fracturing, sand
their extent may not be recognized until a production or loss of reservoir seal.
reservoir is produced. The pressure sink created The effects of geomechanics are especially
by a well to induce production will result in lower pronounced in gas storage operations, where the
wellbore pressures than the pore pressure of the cyclic process of injecting and withdrawing gas to
surrounding formation, and this difference can or from a reservoir provokes changes in fluid
increase the risk of rock failure.13 pressures within reservoir pore spaces. These
With the withdrawal of reservoir fluids during pressures cushion the stresses acting on the rock
production, the overburden load borne by pore mass, but the pressures increase or decrease
fluids must be transferred to the rock framework with injection and withdrawal. The loads acting
surrounding the pore space. Resulting changes in on the rock matrix thereby decrease and
pore pressure will prompt adjustments in total increase in response to these cycles. Although
stress and effective stress. Within the rock, total overburden stress may remain constant
increased loading will cause varying degrees of throughout these cycles, the total horizontal
deformation or failure, evidenced by grain sliding stresses acting throughout the reservoir can vary
42
with pressure, generally decreasing as the gas is
withdrawn. If induced stresses exceed the elastic
limits of the rock, porosity and permeability may
be permanently reduced, along with reductions
in overall storage capacity. Furthermore, as the
surrounding rock adjusts to the isostatic
imbalance caused by pressure cycling and stress
changes, nearby faults may be reactivated.17
Production-induced changes can also affect
the rock beyond the productive areas of a
reservoir. Even in producing formations, reser-
voir attributes such as porosity and permeability
can vary, giving rise to nonuniform drainage and
depletion. As a reservoir is produced, the rock
undrained areas of the formation to compensate
for changes in pressure and displacement of the
adjacent rock. Above the productive formation,
compaction will lead to changes in the over-
burden, as described later in this article.
Changes in stress imposed on a producing
horizon can put the rock out of equilibrium with
its surroundings. The result is a corresponding
transfer of stress between the depleting
reservoir or injection interval and the rock
immediately surrounding the reservoir. Ensuing
rock deformations may compromise the
integrity of existing completions within the
reservoir and overburden (above left). The
significance of production-induced stress
changes and their potential to adversely
influence field operations, production and
economics will depend on mechanical
properties of the rocks, natural fractures and
faults.18 To understand and anticipate such
changes in the wellbore and beyond, operators
are increasingly turning to advanced geome-
chanical testing and modeling techniques.
13. Cook J, Fuller J and Marsden JR: “Geomechanics
Challenges in Gas Storage and Production,” presented
at the United Nations Economic and Social Council:
Economic Commission for Europe: Working Party on
Gas: Proceedings of 3rd Workshop on Geodynamic
and Environmental Safety in the Development,
Storage and Transport of Gas, St. Petersburg, Russia,
June 27–29, 2001.
14. Sayers CM and Schutjens PMTM: “An Introduction to
Reservoir Geomechanics,” The Leading Edge 26, no. 5
(May 2007): 597–601.
15. Doornhof et al, reference 5.
Sayers C, den Boer L, Lee D, Hooyman P and
Lawrence R: “Predicting Reservoir Compaction and
Casing Deformation in Deepwater Turbidites Using a 3D
Mechanical Earth Model,” paper SPE 103926, presented
at the First International Oil Conference and Exhibition,
Cancun, Mexico, August 31–September 2, 2006.
16. Andersen MA: Petroleum Research in North Sea Chalk,
Joint Chalk Research Monograph, RF-Rogaland
Research, Stavanger, 1995.
17. Cook et al, reference 13.
18. Marsden R: “Geomechanics for Reservoir
Management,” in Sonatrach-Schlumberger Well
Evaluation Conference – Algeria 2007. Houston:
Schlumberger (2007): 4.86–4.91.
Oilfield Review
Measuring Ground Truth
Despite years of geomechanical analysis, many
E&P companies continue to experience drilling-
or production-induced problems. However, the
field of geomechanics involves much more than
analysis of stress. Though changing stress fields
can wreak havoc on drilling and production
plans, the orientation or magnitude of stresses
and strains have little significance without
framing such measurements in the context of the
rock itself. And rocks are highly variable. Other
problems are caused, in part, by oversimplified
characterization of rock behavior, and by limited
modeling and analysis capabilities compounded
by a lack of comprehensive rock property data.
These issues are being addressed by the
TerraTek Geomechanics Laboratory Center of
Excellence in Salt Lake City, Utah. TerraTek, Inc.
was acquired by Schlumberger in July 2006 (see
“Geomechanics Laboratory: Testing Under
Extreme Conditions,” page 44). The modern
high-pressure testing systems and techniques
developed at the TerraTek facility evolved from
an effort to characterize and predict ground
motion and crater development in response to
nuclear tests. Evaluation of these tests could not
be performed without rock property measure-
ments obtained under high pressure. Measuring
these properties was very difficult, and
spawned a number of technical breakthroughs
by TerraTek.
Highly accurate load-deformation measure-
ments were essential, requiring measurements
inside test vessels under extreme pressures.
TerraTek scientists conducted research to
measure rock properties to pressures of
150,000 psi [1,034 MPa]. The TerraTek high-
pressure rock property data enabled analysis of
the magnitude of ground motions caused by a
nuclear event.
TerraTek researchers carried out tens of
thousands of tests on rocks under high pressure.
Their testing capabilities were subsequently
applied to other geomechanics investigations,
including geothermal energy recovery, coal
mining, deep geologic nuclear waste storage,
underground energy storage, as well as oil and
gas recovery. Today, the TerraTek Geomechanics
Laboratory Center of Excellence regularly
conducts rock tests for deep wells, achieving
Specialized geomechanics laboratory testing
provides crucial data for wellbore and comple-
tion design and for reservoir management. This
was not always the case. Traditional engineering
analysis of reservoir potential and productivity
tended to overlook the heterogeneity of reservoir
rock. Although heterogeneity may have been
captured in mud logs and core photographs, or
inferred from logs of various petrophysical
properties, these characteristics were not
reflected in simplified homogeneous systems
created for reservoir and geomechanical models.
Properties related to reservoir rock
mechanics were often characterized as uniform
throughout all locations and for all orientations
within a particular geological unit. This approach
inevitably led to underestimations of the role of
material properties in geomechanics. The
industry, however, is coming to realize that the
rock matters, and that its varying properties
cannot be ignored in geomechanical analysis.
Further complicating the evaluation process
is the fact that each stage of reservoir analysis—
from predrill geological studies, through
exploration, to reservoir modeling and
production—tends to be evaluated in isolation,
50,000 psi
0 psi
50,000 psi
0 psi
50,000 psi
0 psi
50,000 psi
B B'
0 psi
0 ft
and without a common reference for scale. Until
recently, there has been no framework to make
the process consistent for every stage. However,
the development of continuous property profiling
and multidimensional cluster analysis of well
logs now provides a uniform scale of reference
for incorporating heterogeneity during all
aspects of reservoir analysis and evaluation.
Continuous Profiling—Scratch testing,
known formally as continuous profiling of
unconfined compressive strength, provides a
quantitative means of evaluating variability in
strength, texture and composition of core
samples. By association, this variability may be
related to other rock properties. Scratch testing
has become critical in correctly defining facies
and heterogeneities that would be difficult or
impossible to observe by geologic description or
log characteristics alone. Digital photographs of
the core, in conjunction with scratch testing,
allow visualization of textural heterogeneity and
associated strength heterogeneity (below).
When continuous-strength profiling is
combined with cluster analysis of well logs, it
(continued on page 48)
A'
A

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0 ft

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0 ft

pressures of 30,000 psi [207 MPa], or to higher

pressures of 50,000 to 60,000 psi [345 to 414 MPa]
when required for drilling-rock destruction or
perforation analysis. In addition to high-pressure
geomechanics testing capabilities, the TerraTek
facility conducts large-scale drilling and
completions performance testing.
> Overlay of a core photograph and scratch test results. A scratch test uses a sharp point that is pulled
along the core with a fixed force to press it into the core’s surface. The depth of the scratch, as an
indicator of rock strength (red curves), can be correlated to mechanical properties of the rock. Cored
intervals exhibiting visually similar properties (same shades of gray, points A and A’) may have different
strengths, while other intervals exhibiting different visual properties (lighter and darker shades of gray,
points B and B’) have equal strengths. Variability in mechanical strength along the length of the core is
high, ranging from 8,000 psi to 23,000 psi [55 to 159 MPa] within just 8 contiguous feet [3.6 m] of core.

Autumn 2007 43
 Geomechanics Laboratory: Testing Under Extreme Conditions

The TerraTek facility in Salt Lake City, desig-

nated as the Schlumberger Geomechanics
Laboratory Center of Excellence, investigates
the impact of geomechanics on a wide range
of exploration and production applications.
The range of applications also provides insight
into the kinds of problems that operators
must try to circumvent:
• Well construction and completion: evaluate
wellbore stability and the potential for sand
production and perforation collapse; analyze
multilateral junctions and evaluate stability
of conventional and expandable liners.
• Completion and stimulation design: deter-
mine optimal completion alternatives based
on rock mechanical and physical properties;
investigate options for delayed gravel pack-
ing and oriented perforating; optimize
stimulation treatment design.
• Long-term production behavior: investigate
stress regimes contributing to reservoir
compaction during production; predict
surface subsidence and subsequent loss of
reservoir permeability; analyze fines gener-
ated during the compaction process, along
with associated skin damage; evaluate
potential for casing collapse.
• Overburden rocks: test for compatibility
between drilling fluids and shales; optimize
> Large-block polyaxial stress frame for simulating downhole conditions.
selection of drilling fluids; evaluate poten-
Here, a worker lowers a steel platen while preparing to seal the test chamber.
tial for delayed shale failure caused by
mud-shale interactions; analyze thermal
effects that cause delayed shale failure.
• Exploration and frontier drilling operations: In this setting, researchers can measure defor- internal chamber that can accommodate
develop field and laboratory correlations for mation parameters while simultaneously blocks of rock measuring up to 30 x 30 x 36 in.
predicting mechanical properties and in-situ measuring dynamic responses of rock samples [76 x 76 x 91 cm]. The chamber is sealed with
stress prior to and concurrent with to different load rates and magnitudes. The steel platens that are bolted over 12 large tie
exploratory drilling activity. large-block stress frame can be configured to rods (above).
Testing is conducted in different specialized simulate a variety of downhole pressures and Pairs of bladder-like devices, called flatjacks,
laboratories, depending on available test mate- conditions. Large-block testing applications are placed on opposite sides of the sample to
rial, client specifications and research efforts. range from wellbore stability analysis to evalu- apply independent triaxial loading in each of
Many large-scale tests are carried out in the ating sanding potential, liner and screen the three principal stress directions. The three
completions laboratory. One of the more loading, perforating effectiveness and hydraulic pairs of flatjacks are internally pressurized,
prominent features of this facility is its large- fracturing simulations. with one surface of the flatjack reacting against
block polyaxial stress frame. The stress frame Located inside a pit, the exterior of the the face of the rock, and the other surface
provides a controlled environment for monitor- stress frame is formed by a series of steel reacting against the wall of the internal cham-
ing rock responses during pseudostatic testing. rings. These rings are stacked to encase an ber of the stress frame, or its platen.

44 Oilfield Review
 > Polyaxial stress frame. This device can
accommodate rock samples measuring up to
12 x 12 x 16 in. [30 x 30 x 41 cm].
A maximum stress of 8,000 psi [55 MPa] can be
applied in all three directions, with a maximum
difference of 2,000 psi [13.8 MPa] between the
two horizontal stresses. Each stress can be con-
trolled independently.
The stress frame also has the capability to
control pore pressure within a sample. In such
tests, the rock sample is encased in a thin
steel canister. Thick rubber sheets are placed
at the top and bottom surfaces of the rock to
act as pore-pressure fluid seals. A porous
proppant pack placed around the block estab-
lishes a constant pressure boundary
condition. Custom software controls each of
the three principal stresses, along with pore
pressure and wellbore pressure. The software
can be programmed to keep a constant effec-
tive stress on the sample block at all times.
Some experiments require a simulated
permeable zone bounded above and below by
impermeable formations. In these kinds of
Autumn 2007
> Instrumented sample for triaxial testing. This test-frame assembly is used to measure radial
and axial strains, along with compressional and shear wave velocities. In this configuration, both
pseudostatic and dynamic elastic properties are determined concurrently under simulated in-situ
stress conditions. Here, a core consisting of alternating light and dark layers of siltstone and
mudstone is subjected to ultrasonic pulses to test seismic responses in the rock. The sample is
sealed with a clear polyurethane jacket that prevents fluid communication between the confining
fluid pressure and the pore pressure. These test frames can also perform uniaxial strain
compaction testing, thick-walled cylinder testing and other specialized stress paths up to
temperatures of 200°C [392°F]. Axial force up to 1.5 x 106 lbf [6.7 MN] can be applied to samples
up to 6 in. [15 cm] in diameter. Confining pressure and pore pressure are monitored with
conventional pressure transducers with pressure limits of 30,000 psi [207 MPa]. Another system
in this laboratory can attain 60,000 psi [414 MPa].
tests, a servo-controlled injector is used to eters ranging from 0.5 inches [12.7 mm] to
supply the fluid at either a constant rate or a 6 inches [152.4 mm]. Testing on a smaller
constant pressure. The injected fluids can scale can also provide valuable insights into
range from brine to drilling mud to various rock characteristics.1 A special triaxial test
completion fluids. The injection can simulate frame has been designed to measure rock
a scaled or actual-sized wellbore. strain as well as its effects on seismic veloci-
For smaller samples, a medium-sized ties (above right). Ultrasonic velocities,
polyaxial stress frame is used (above left).
1. Laboratory capabilities include an extensive variety
This device is often used for studying acid of tests—unconfined compression, uniaxial-strain
fracturing and other stimulation techniques, compression, triaxial compression, multistage triaxial
compression, controlled constant stress path, thick-
providing a wide range of testing capabilities. walled cylinder (with and without radial fluid flow and
Another unique testing facility is the rock measurements of produced sand), and tensile strength
tests, as well as testing with concurrent ultrasonic
mechanics laboratory, where 14 stress frames velocity and acoustic emissions measurements—
are used to test cylindrical samples with diam- along with many customized test programs and
research efforts.
45
 obtained in combination with deformation
measurements of axial and radial strain, pro-
vide information on static and dynamic
mechanical properties that can be correlated
to well-log data.
The triaxial test frame holds a core sample
between polished, hardened-steel end-caps.
The sample, measuring 1 in. [2.5 cm] in diame-
ter by 2 in. [5 cm] in length, is jacketed by an
impermeable membrane. Axial and radial can-
tilever-beam sets are mounted to the sample to
measure displacements when the sample is
subjected to stress and pressure. The axial
strain cantilever set is attached to the upper
end-cap and measures axial displacement
through deflection on the base cone attached
to the bottom end-cap. The radial-strain can-
tilever set consists of a ring with four
strain-gauge arms, which measure radial dis-
placement at four points, forming two
perpendicular directions at the midpoint of the
sample. The bottom end-cap rests on an inter-
nal load cell, and the axial stress is calculated
from measurements of force on the internal
load cell. During testing, data are corrected for
elastic distortion of the end-caps and for
strains associated with the jacketing material.
The end-caps also contain ultrasonic trans-
ducers. Ultrasonic velocity measurements are
performed with piezoelectric transducers that
transform electrical pulses into mechanical
pulses and vice-versa. Compressional and
shear pulses are generated by a pulse genera-
tor that applies a high-voltage, short-duration
electrical pulse at an ultrasonic frequency to
one of the piezoelectric transducers. This
pulse is transmitted through the rock sample
in the form of an elastic wave. The receiving
transducer at the opposite end of the rock
sample transforms this elastic wave into an
electric signal, which is captured on a digital
oscilloscope. The P-wave and S-wave velocities
are calculated on the basis of the time required
for the compressional or shear pulses to travel
through the specimen.
The instrumented test sample is next
placed inside a pressure vessel. The pressure
vessel is then filled with either mineral spir-
its or oil to apply confining pressure. Axial
stress, axial strain, radial strain and confining
pressure are all measured and controlled
46
during each test. Depending on testing objec-
tives, these tests may be performed with pore
fluids drained to atmospheric pressure, or
with pore fluids undrained. Temperatures can
also be increased to better approximate
actual in-situ conditions.
The triaxial test frame permits measure-
ments to be taken at different orientations
with respect to bedding planes. Using these
measurements, the failure envelope of the
rock sample can be defined as a function of
stress orientation to bedding; in addition,
anisotropic properties of the rock can be
defined. This information is essential for pre-
dicting wellbore stability, evaluating in-situ
stress and designing hydraulic fracture pro-
grams for strongly anisotropic formations
such as those found in unconventional tight
gas shales.
Ultrasonic velocities, obtained in combina-
tion with deformation measurements of axial
and radial strain, provide information on
static and dynamic mechanical properties
that can be correlated to well-log data. Ultra-
sonic wave velocities in sandstones, particu-
larly those that are poorly consolidated, are
strongly dependent on stress; thus, stress > TerraTek wellbore simulator. The full-scale
drilling rig and wellbore simulator can be
changes can be calibrated to seismic velocity
configured to test the performance, wear,
measurements. Other, more consolidated deviation and dynamics of full-size drill bits in
rocks, such as tight sands and tight shales, overbalanced or underbalanced conditions
exhibit an entirely different behavior. Wave and at simulated depths. A triplex mud pump,
equipped with a special high-pressure fluid
velocities in these rocks are virtually inde- manifold, can produce wellbore pressures up
pendent of stress, so changes in measured to 11,000 psi [75.8 MPa] to simulate high-
seismic velocities can be attributed to other pressure drilling conditions. Effects of various
phenomena such as anisotropy. fluids on drilling performance, bit balling,
formation damage, coring and core invasion
Early knowledge of rock behavior was based are also investigated here.
on testing of homogeneous and isotropic
materials; early models reflected this simplic-
ity. New opportunities, such as unconventional
hydrocarbon plays, are emerging, and call properties or fluid properties at extreme tem-
attention to the true nature of the rocks in peratures and pressures, determining the
which they are based. Platforms such as the manner in which complex rock cutting and
triaxial test frame provide data that are fun- breakage mechanisms interact in the presence
damental for developing new models to honor of drilling fluids at great depth is much more
the heterogeneous, anisotropic nature of com- difficult. To accommodate large-scale geome-
plex formations. chanics testing, the drilling laboratory is
The TerraTek facility is also called upon to equipped with a wellbore simulator capable of
test new drilling, completion and stimulation reproducing pressure conditions at reservoir
technologies, including evaluation of drilling depth while also accommodating the flow rates
fluids and bits at high pressures. Although typically required to drill in extreme environ-
capabilities exist for measuring individual rock ments (above).
Oilfield Review
 The TerraTek wellbore simulator was cen-
tral to a recent high-pressure drilling study
sponsored by the US Department of Energy
(DOE) joint industry program, called Deep
Trek. The facility was contracted to provide
full-scale laboratory tests of drill bits and pro-
totype drilling fluids at 10,000-psi [68.9-MPa]
borehole pressure—substantially higher pres-
sures than any previously studied. Results
from these tests may influence the economics
of deep drilling.
The study demonstrated that drilling rates
of penetration (ROPs) can be increased in
deep-well applications using advanced bit and
drilling fluid designs. Although previous stud-
ies have shown that ROP usually falls with
> Breakout simulation. With no drilling mud used to drill this increasing borehole pressure, these earlier
sandstone subjected to increasing confining pressure, this studies did not account for certain mecha-
simulated wellbore progressively broke down, producing a classic nisms that affect ROP at great depth, such as
borehole breakout pattern.
type of drilling fluid, weighting material and
spurt loss.2
Another common wellbore stability problem
involves borehole breakouts. Although break-
outs often occur during drilling, they can also
affect the completion process. In one break-
out investigation, TerraTek engineers drilled
an 81⁄2-inch [21.6-cm] borehole in a large
sandstone core. The core was subjected to
increasing rates of confining pressure in the
laboratory. The resulting borehole breakout
was similar to that produced in actual well-
bores when drilling fluid weights are too low
(above left).
The sample was subsequently used for an
expandable sand screen (ESS) mechanical
integrity test. The screen and basepipe assem-
bly was compliantly expanded to the borehole
wall and partially into the breakout zone.
Results from this test showed how far the
screen could be expanded into the borehole
> Bottomhole drillbit patterns. Bottomhole impressions track
performance of a bit as it drills a borehole through high-strength
breakout, in addition to determining the col-
sandstone. In this case, a polycrystalline diamond compact bit was lapse load resistance of the ESS product.
drilling with a 16-lbm/gal (ppg) [1.9-g/cm3] oil-base mud at 10,000-psi Other problems that adversely impact
[68.9-MPa] wellbore pressure. The patterns on the bottom were drilling performance, such as vibration or
subsequently studied to determine how various drilling conditions
affected drilling performance. As depth of the rings decreases, so borehole spiraling, are identified through
does the cutting efficiency of the bit, and hence the ROP examination of drilling patterns (left).
decreases. With different drilling fluids, the patterns sometimes Through the aid of the borehole simulator,
disappear altogether. researchers have an opportunity to closely
2. Spurt loss is an instantaneous loss of a volume of “Optimization of Deep Drilling Performance; study bottomhole patterns that would other-
the liquid component of drilling fluid as it passes Benchmark Testing Drives ROP Improvements for wise not be accessible.
through the borehole wall prior to deposition of Bits and Drilling Fluids,” paper SPE/IADC 105885,
competent filtercake. presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
For more on ROP testing: Judzis A, Bland R, Curry D, Amsterdam, February 20–22, 2007.
Black A, Robertson H, Meiners M and Grant T:

Autumn 2007 47
 PE Well 1 Well 2 Error
1 barn/e- 6
Depth, ft Depth, ft Depth, ft
Gamma Ray Bulk Density
X,500 X,500 X,500
0 gAPI 150 2 g/cm3 3
Caliper Resistivity Neutron Porosity
Cluster Tag
5 in. 15 0 ohm.m 1,000 0.45 vol/vol –0.15 X,600 X,600 X,600

X,700 X,700 X,700

X,800 X,800 X,800

X,900 X,900 X,900

Y,000 Y,000 Y,000

Y,100 Y,100 Y,100

Y,200 Y,200 Y,200

Y,300 Y,300 Y,300

Y,400 Y,400 Y,400

Y,500 Y,500 Y,500

0 50 100
Percent

> Cluster tagging between two wells. Color-coding of log responses from each well, combined with
analysis of compliance in the Error track, is useful in identifying changes in thickness and location of
previously defined cluster units between wells. Here, the red-blue-yellow sequences are significantly
higher and thicker in Well 1 than in Well 2. Three excursions above 40% error (red line) indicate
candidate zones for further sampling to better describe the range of facies encountered.

> Cluster analysis of well logs. A multidimensional
statistical algorithm is applied to the well-log
measurements to identify similar and dissimilar
combined log responses, enabling users to
identify rock units with similar and dissimilar
material properties. The output is displayed as a
color-coded representation of clusters for visual
interpretation of rock units with distinct properties
along the interval of interest (Track 4).
provides fundamental relationships for upscaling
or downscaling, and so is a powerful tool for core-
log integration.
Cluster Analysis—Cluster analysis defines
log-scale heterogeneity, based on multidimen-
sional analysis of log responses (above left). This
technique uses detailed algorithms to distinguish
similar and dissimilar patterns of log responses.
Because this technique interprets the combined
effect on all measurements, it is able to
recognize small but consistent variations in
combined log responses. As applied to heteroge-
neous distributions of material properties,
cluster analysis also provides a relevant scale for
manipulating property variability in subsequent
evaluation steps throughout a project.
Cluster Tagging—The application of cluster
analysis can be extended to multiple wells,
providing comparisons between the cored, or
reference, well and other wells in a field. Details
obtained through cluster analysis of one well can
be used to recognize similar traits in adjacent
wells through a process known as cluster tagging.
Cluster tagging begins with log-response
clusters defined over discrete cored intervals in a
reference well, then compares these clusters
with log responses from a noncored well. Using
definitions established from core-log responses
in the reference well, the technique assigns
clusters to logs from the noncored well and then
outputs an error curve to help evaluate
compliance between two correlative zones.
Clusters showing poor compliance, where error
exceeds 40%, indicate a log response that is not
represented in the defined clusters, and thus a
new facies. These clusters are candidates for
detailed core sampling to provide new cluster
definitions and further characterize the range of
facies in a prospect (above right).
Cluster analysis is also used for optimal
selection of core samples. In reservoir studies,
both the strongest and weakest core samples
measured by continuous profiling must be tested
in proportion to their relative abundance in a
reservoir. Improper sampling in heterogeneous
or thinly interbedded formation cores can result
in biased representation of the formation.
Cluster analysis can help operators tie log

48 Oilfield Review
properties to core properties throughout the
reservoir, and thereby recognize which parts of a
core merit additional plug-sample analysis
(below). With cluster-analysis measurements of
log-scale heterogeneity and core-scale hetero-
geneity measurements obtained through scratch
testing, the operator can determine the location
and number of samples required to adequately
characterize the core.
Cluster-Level Property Predictions—Since
models are traditionally built around the
structure and stratigraphic layout of a basin, the
discontinuous and heterogeneous distribution of
reservoir and nonreservoir lithological units
within a single stratigraphic section is often
poorly represented across the basin. Cluster
analysis identifies units by their material
properties and maps their distribution along the
length of a well. By relating laboratory measure-
ments of these units to their combined log
responses, core-log relationships are developed
for each cluster. Since the method is unaffected
by variability in thickness or stacking arrange-
ments of the various cluster units, it allows
prediction of properties along the length of the
logged section in a well.
Multiwell Analysis—For basin-wide analysis,
cluster tags of multiple wells are tied to a single
reference model containing definitions of
material properties across the basin. The results
can be used for 3D visualization of lateral
variability in reservoir and nonreservoir units.
Cluster tag analysis was instrumental in
generating a regional study for a client who was
pursuing an unconventional gas play. The goal
was to model the vertical and lateral discon-
tinuity of principal reservoir units in a tight
gas-shale reservoir. These reservoirs are highly
heterogeneous both vertically and laterally, with
localized diagenetic alterations that create great
variability in material properties. As a result,
reservoir and mechanical properties change
significantly from location to location between
wells, and production performance often varies,
even between wells drilled in close proximity to
each other.
The client ordered a study to understand the
variability in permeability, gas-filled porosity and

Log-Scale Core-Scale Heterogeneity Sample-Scale

Heterogeneity Heterogeneity
10 k

50 k

10 k

50 k
1 0 ft 2 0 ft

1 1 ft 1 ft

2
2
2 ft 2 ft

2 in.
10 k

50 k

10 k

50 k

33
3 0 ft 4 0 ft

4
4

1 ft 1 ft

2 ft 2 ft
10 k 40 k

> Using rock heterogeneity to select laboratory samples. Log-scale heterogeneity, indicated by cluster colors (left), is compared against core-scale
heterogeneity data obtained through scratch testing (red curves) superimposed onto core photographs (middle). In the log-scale heterogeneity plot, color is
used to differentiate between zones of similar or dissimilar material properties as a function of unconfined compressive strength measurements. Here the
yellow clusters are the weakest units and brown clusters are strongest. Progressing from region 1 (yellow cluster), region 2 (yellow cluster transitioning to
dark blue), region 3 (dark blue transitioning to brown), and region 4 (brown cluster), the rock strength varies by more than 400%. Core photographs (middle)
show a corresponding transition in unconfined compressive strength from 10,000 psi [68.9 MPa] in the argillaceous mudstone (core section 1) to 40,000 psi
[275.8 MPa] in the basal carbonate (core section 4) within this 40-ft [12-m] interval. Sample plugs (right) are taken from the whole core for detailed analysis
and testing. This methodology helps operators ensure that their 2-in. sample plugs account for the variability present in the whole core.

Autumn 2007 49

Cluster tag
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
> Basin-wide multiwell cluster analysis. This presentation uses Petrel seismic-to-simulation software
to help operators visualize the cluster-analysis results and track reservoir quality throughout the field.
Different cluster units are associated with distinct reservoir qualities. They are also associated with
different values of fracture containment potential. Once the reservoir quality and fracture containment
potential are identified in detail by laboratory testing, they can be tracked laterally across the basin.
Surfaces identifying the intervals of best reservoir quality have been delineated. Cluster analysis in
this case identifies the heterogeneity inherent in any of these units that otherwise might be
considered homogeneous.
total organic content as they relate to reservoir
quality. It was also important to understand the
variability in the conditions of hydraulic fracture
containment along the various wells containing
units with best reservoir quality. For optimal well
productivity, reservoir quality must be coupled
with completion quality. In this field, reservoir
quality alone, without successful fracturing and
fracture-height containment, would result in
poor well productivity. By mapping locations
throughout the field where both conditions of
reservoir quality and completion quality exist
simultaneously, the client could identify sweet
spots in the reservoir (above left). The results of
this field study would also help improve
visualization of production distribution across
the basin.
TerraTek geoscientists used cluster analysis
and cluster tagging to evaluate the field.
Understanding the vertical stacking patterns of
cluster units on a well helped the client define
the location and thickness of clusters with the
best reservoir-quality properties.
19. McCann GD and Wilts CH: “A Mathematical Analysis of
the Subsidence in the Long Beach-San Pedro Area,”
technical report, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena (November 1951), in Geertsma, reference 2.
20. Ali AHA, Brown T, Delgado R, Lee D, Plumb D,
Smirnov N, Marsden R, Prado-Velarde E, Ramsey L,
Spooner D, Stone T and Stouffer T: “Watching Rocks
Change—Mechanical Earth Modeling,” Oilfield
Review 15, no. 2 (Summer 2003): 22–39.
50
Once these parameters were defined, the
client could select the best geometry of
horizontal wells and the best locations for
perforating. Understanding the properties of
cluster units immediately above and below the
best reservoir-quality units also helped identify
mechanical properties and conditions for
hydraulic fracture containment.
Modeling Geomechanical Properties
The interaction between geology, wellbore
orientation and stress changes caused by drilling
or production is a complex 3D process. This
interaction continually changes over time,
adding yet another dimension of complexity.
Over the life of any productive field, innumerable
events take place that alter the geomechanical
framework between the reservoir and the
surface. Exploration wells are drilled and tested;
additional wells are drilled and produced; some
may be turned into injectors, some are worked
over, while others are plugged and abandoned.
Each activity causes changes in stress—some
ephemeral, others more enduring. And these
changes can be costly, with potential to affect
formation integrity, porosity and permeability;
reservoir compaction and subsidence; and well
and completion integrity.
p
Geologic Data
• Regional tectonic framework
• Structure depth maps
• Lithostratigraphic column
• Regional compaction trends
• Basin analysis
• Earthquake fault-plane solutions
• Tiltmeter surveys
• Core tests and descriptions
– Rock composition and texture
– Core-log integration
– Heterogeneity and anisotropy
– Petrophysical and mechanical
characterization
Seismic Data
• 3D seismic cube
• 2D seismic profiles
• Tomographic velocity
• Vertical seismic profiles and checkshot data
• P-wave velocity profiles
Formation Evaluation Data
• Wireline and LWD logs
– Gamma ray, resistivity, density, sonic, caliper
– Acoustic scanning tool
– Borehole imaging
• Well test and production pressure measurements
– Formation tests and drillstem tests
Drilling Data
• Daily drilling reports
• End of well reports
• Mud weight profile
• Leakoff tests, extended leakoff tests, formation
integrity tests, minifrac tests
• Directional surveys
• Mud logs
Calibration Data
• Laboratory measurements on cores
• In-situ stress measurements from hydro-
fracturing tests
• Observed breakouts and stress-induced features
• Field and production observations
> Array of input parameters for a mechanical
earth model.
The movement to understand such changes
was spurred in part by recognition that
subsidence in certain fields was directly related
to production. Basic mathematical models were
developed by the early 1950s to understand and
predict subsidence in Wilmington field,
California.19 Later, subsidence of the North Sea
Ekofisk field, discovered in the early 1980s,
prompted development of more comprehensive
computer models, based on finite-element
analysis. These models linked hydrocarbon
production to changes in reservoir properties and
deformation and, in turn, to seabed movement
and faulting in the overburden.
E&P companies became interested in
learning how stress evolves as reservoirs become
Oilfield Review
 Importing from ECLIPSE
or Petrel software, or both
Data and results utilized
in engineering designs
and planning
> Workflow for 4D coupled reservoir geomechanics modeling. Formation and structural data form the framework for the initial reservoir model, then
characteristics from surrounding rock bodies are added. Stress and strain are modeled throughout the reservoir and adjacent rock to understand changes
over time.
depleted. If stress changes could be modeled
over the life of a field, operators could predict
problems during the life of a well or anticipate
the need for infill drilling. With a steady growth
of computational capacity, geomechanics
programs acquired increasingly sophisticated
modeling capabilities. Rock mechanical models
developed to analyze stress changes in reservoirs
included the VISAGE stress analysis simulator.
This advanced geomechanics modeling system
emerged from waterflood directionality studies
in the North Sea and elsewhere.
Developed in 1993 by V.I.P.S. (Vector
International Processing Systems) of Bracknell,
England, VISAGE geomechanics software solves
equations that relate rock stress and pore
pressure to deformation and reservoir properties.
By integrating geomechanics and rock mechanics
with reservoir engineering, V.I.P.S. developed the
world’s first coupled geomechanics stress-
dependent reservoir simulator. With acquisition
of V.I.P.S. by Schlumberger in April 2007, the
Bracknell facility was designated as the Reservoir
Geomechanics Center of Excellence.
Autumn 2007
Importing fault surfaces
Δp, ΔT
ECLIPSE VISAGE
simulation simulation
Δkij, ΔVpore
Initialization and coupled
simulation (parallelization)
Finite-element modeling is widely used for
stress analysis in both conventional engineering
and geomechanics. Finite-difference modeling is
used to analyze fluid flow. The advantage of the
VISAGE simulator is its capability to describe
and simulate the coupled nature of geomechanical
stresses and fluid flow as they change over time
by linking these two analyses. This capability is
key to development of 3D and time-sequenced 4D
mechanical earth models.
Unlike reservoir production models,
mechanical earth models (MEMs) must take into
account not only the reservoir, but also the
overburden, seabed, the underburden, or rock
beneath the reservoir, and sideburden, or
adjacent rock, which often provides stress
boundary conditions.20 The MEMs are usually
much larger than ordinary reservoir models. As
such, they have substantial data requirements
that may be difficult to satisfy.
Complex rock behavior, varying rock
properties and large-scale simulations require
better software and better data, especially with
Embedding in overburden,
underburden and sideburden
Population with properties and
assign behavioral models
regard to cores. Basic models of the past enabled
the industry to opt for simplified assumptions,
using homogeneous formation properties
throughout their models. Today’s sophisticated
numerical simulators inevitably dictate a wider
array of data. The MEM is built to honor this wide
array of data (previous page, top right).
A geomechanical simulation might begin with
construction of a 3D structural model. Next, the
model is populated with mechanical properties
of each formation and fault. The properties are
derived from seismic data, logs, cores, geostatis-
tical projections and inversion of breakout and
drilling data for individual wells. Boundary
conditions, simulating the expected stress
profiles at the sides of the model, are then added.
This populated model is imported into the
VISAGE system to calculate the evolution of
stresses throughout the model (above).
The driving mechanism of the modeling is
mainly pressure changes induced by fluid
extraction from the reservoir, or by injection into
51
 The goal of the first phase was to enhance an
existing reservoir model by adding more rock
layers and structural detail. First, the reservoir
model was extended up to the seafloor, adding 20
new layers and eight horizons for optimal
description of the overburden sequence. Ten
layers were added below the reservoir layer to
serve as underburden, and eight cells were added
on each of the four vertical boundaries to serve
as sideburden. Next, 45 faults and two different
fracture sets were incorporated into the
embedded model. The mechanical properties
were determined based on laboratory tests, core
calibration and literature reviews. A 1D stress
calibration was determined from density log
Stress integration, leakoff tests and pore-pressure
modeling based on wireline log data.
0 Maximum
The second phase sought to characterize the
> Three-dimensional view of a reservoir. The uppermost horizon of an anticlinal stress state prior to production operations. An
reservoir is intersected by numerous faults (inclined planes of semitransparent initial effective stress state was computed, based
purple, red, green and blue). The axis of the anticline is aligned with the long
axis of this figure. Colors on the reservoir surface represent the computed state on properties determined in the first phase. The
of initial maximum principal stress acting on this horizon. In regions remote from stress-state computations accounted for contrasts
and unaffected by the presence of faults, the maximum principal stresses in deformation and strength properties between
(green) correspond closely to the magnitude of the vertical or overburden stress, different rock layers, and also considered
meaning that the principal stresses are near-horizontal and near-vertical. The
regions of reduced stress (blue) are the result of stress-arching in areas where discontinuity within the rock layers themselves
the structural geometry and the stiffness of overburden layers create an (left). The computed initial stress state was
incomplete transmission of overburden weight onto the underlying reservoir. The checked to verify agreement with field data and
high maximum stress concentrations (yellows and reds) near the faults coincide
geological features relating to stress orientations,
with inclined principal stresses, causing the magnitudes of the maximum
principal stresses to exceed lithostatic or overburden stresses generated by stress magnitudes and fault orientation.
gravity and the weight of the overlying rock mass. The black box in the upper The goal of the third phase was to determine
quadrant represents the area of study shown in the following figure (next page). the state of present-day stresses. The approach
called for both flow and stress modeling, starting
with the change in pressure predicted by the
ECLIPSE reservoir simulator. The changes in
stress and strain induced by production and
injection operations were then assessed using
the VISAGE geomechanical simulator. The
the reservoir. Fluid flow is modeled using a • well integrity—well design to accommodate computed compaction at the top of the reservoir
reservoir simulator, such as the ECLIPSE compac tion and subsidence as the well was in good agreement with the estimated value
reservoir simulation package. By accounting for is produced. from 3D seismic inversion.
these pressure changes in the stress calculations This coupled approach was recently used in a It was also important to assess the risk of well
using VISAGE software, it is possible to accurately North Sea field study. The South Arne field, failure. The coupled simulations demonstrated
predict subsurface deformations and stress located in the Danish sector of the North Sea, that pore collapse within the reservoir layers
changes, and evaluate their influence on material produces from the Maastrichtian Tor and Danian would cause compaction and subsidence, and that
properties such as permeability and porosity. Ekofisk chalk formations. Oil production from differential pore collapse could result in localized
The resulting model can be used as a source the low-permeability chalk is driven both by well failure (next page).
of stress data for several key stages: water injection and by compaction of the chalk. In the last phase, fluid-flow and stress
• well planning—wellbore stability and optimum In 2006, a field study of the South Arne field simulation was performed in which permeability
drilling azimuth was conducted to quantify the effects of changed in accord with stress and strain
• well completions—sand management production from 1999 to 2005, and to assess changes. After history-matching of production
• formation stimulation—hydraulic fracture outcomes of a proposed development plan. The and injection data, the geomechanical model
orientation field study was carried out using a history- agreed with production history.
• field management—pressure maintenance matched ECLIPSE model and the VISAGE
and injection geomechanical simulator. The geomechanical
study comprised four phases.

52 Oilfield Review
 Compaction

0 Maximum
> Production-induced compaction. These figures correspond to the boxed area shown in the previous figure (page 52 ). Production-induced time shifts seen
from the 4D seismic response (left) closely match the pattern of computed plastic strains obtained through coupled numerical simulation (right). Maximum
compaction (red) follows the NW trend of horizontal wellbores (dark blue lines) in the upper part of this figure. As expected, the area of greatest compaction
corresponds to that part of the reservoir experiencing the greatest production and consequently the greatest depletion. The computed maximum compaction
of 1.45 m [4.76 ft] at the top of the reservoir was in good agreement with the estimated value of 1.4 m [4.59 ft] from 3D seismic inversion. The absence of 4D
seismic data (white zone) is caused by a gas cloud. Close agreement between the 4D seismic data and the numerical model reinforces confidence in model
results over the area where seismic data were not available.

Monitoring: Geomechanics and
4D Seismic Data
Once a field model is developed, it should be
periodically updated with data obtained through
monitoring. A variety of techniques have been
devised for monitoring field-scale geomechanical
effects. For example, global positioning systems,
bathymetry and borehole tiltmeter surveys have
been used to measure surface subsidence.
Reservoir compaction can be detected by moni-
toring casing collar movement, although this
method is not precise. Microseismic techniques
have been used to detect regions of movement
and rock failure during depletion, and are
particularly useful for identifying fault
movements and monitoring fracture creation
during injection and thermal recovery processes.21
Time-lapse, or 4D, seismic surveys are also being
used for geomechanical monitoring.22
Both seismic compressional and shear waves
are influenced by production-induced stress
changes inside and around a reservoir. Time-
lapse seismic surveys, which predominantly use
compressional waves, have long been used to
monitor reservoir changes caused by production.
Repeatedly surveying a reservoir over time
enables geophysicists to compare differences in
seismic attributes, such as reflection amplitudes
and traveltimes, between the initial baseline
survey and subsequent monitor surveys. These
differences are particularly useful in detecting
movements of gas/liquid contacts that occur as
reservoirs are produced. In recent years, 4D
seismic techniques have also been used to
monitor production-induced changes in reservoir
geomechanical properties.
Among the differences between baseline and
monitor surveys, geophysicists sometimes
observed shifts in seismic traveltimes to a
specific horizon. Initially, these discrepancies
were attributed to logistical problems associated
with repeating surveys over a reservoir: namely,
the difficulty in placing seismic sources and
receivers in exactly the same position for every
survey. The slightest mispositioning of sources or
receivers could lead to modified raypaths that
traveled through slightly different parts of the
subsurface, generating perturbations in observed
traveltimes. In the past, discrepancies in seismic
21. For more on microseismic applications: Bennett L,
Le Calvez J, Sarver DR, Tanner K, Birk WS, Waters G,
Drew J, Michaud G, Primiero P, Eisner L, Jones R,
Leslie D, Williams MJ, Govenlock J, Klem RC and
Tezuko K: “The Source for Hydraulic Fracture
Characterization,” Oilfield Review 17, no. 4 (Winter
2005/2006): 42–57.
22. Doornhof et al, reference 5.

Autumn 2007 53
 Vertical displacement, Δz
Δz, m

1,500 0.25

0.20
2,000
0.15
Depth, m

2,500 0.10
Time-lapse time shift for vertical P-waves, Δt
0.05 Δt, ms
3,000
0.00 1,500

Decrease in TWT Increase in TWT

3,500 –0.05
–4,000 –3,000 –2,000 –1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 2,000
Distance, m

Depth, m
2,500
Change in vertical P-velocity, ΔVp
ΔVp, m/s
3,000
1,500 8

6 3,500
2,000 –4,000 –3,000 –2,000 –1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000
Distance, m
4
Depth, m

2,500
2

0
3,000
–2
3,500
–4,000 –3,000 –2,000 –1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000
Distance, m
> Changing seismic characteristics. Both change in geometry (top left) and change in seismic velocity (bottom left) influence seismic reflection traveltimes.
The seismic two-way traveltime (TWT) (right) gradually increases toward the top of the reservoir due to overburden stretching and associated velocity
decrease. The largest time shifts are observed around the producing wells. Inside the reservoir, the seismic velocity increases because of increased stress,
so the time shifts become smaller.

traveltimes were frequently attributed to
differences in acquisition geometry or to
processing artifacts.
However, seismic acquisition and processing
technology has steadily improved, so that sources
and receivers can now be repeatedly positioned
with high accuracy, allowing reliable measures of
traveltime changes as small as 1 millisecond.
With this level of accuracy, geophysicists are able
to use time-lapse seismic techniques for observ-
ing depletion-induced traveltime changes for a
growing number of fields. In the North Sea’s
Ekofisk and Valhall fields, combined observations
by reservoir engineers, geophysicists and geome-
chanics specialists have led them to conclude
that the soft chalk of the reservoir rock was
undergoing substantial reservoir compaction,

23. Barkved O, Heavey P, Kleppan T and Kristiansen TG:
“Valhall Field—Still on Plateau After 20 Years of
Production,” paper SPE 83957, presented at SPE
Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, September 2–5, 2003.
24. Guilbot J and Smith B: “4-D Constrained Depth
Conversion for Reservoir Compaction Estimation:
Application to Ekofisk Field,” The Leading Edge 21, no. 3
(March 2002): 302–308.
Nickel M, Schlaf J and Sønneland L: “New Tools for 4D
Seismic Analysis in Compacting Reservoirs,” Petroleum
Geoscience 9, no. 1 (2003): 53–59.
Hall SA, MacBeth C, Barkved OI and Wild P: “Time-
Lapse Seismic Monitoring of Compaction and
Subsidence at Valhall Through Cross-Matching and
Interpreted Warping of 3D Streamer and OBC Data,”
presented at the 72nd SEG International Exposition and
Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6–11, 2002.
25. Hatchell PJ, van den Beukel A, Molenaar MM,
Maron KP, Kenter CJ, Stammeijer JGF, van der Velde JJ
and Sayers CM:“Whole Earth 4D: Monitoring
Geomechanics,” Expanded Abstracts, 73rd SEG Annual
International Meeting, Dallas (October 26–31, 2003):
1330–1333.
Hatchell P and Bourne S: “Rocks Under Strain: Strain-
Induced Time-Lapse Time-Shifts Are Observed for
Depleting Reservoirs,” The Leading Edge 24, no. 12
(December 2005): 1222–1225.
26. Hatchell et al, reference 25.
Hatchell and Bourne, reference 25.
Herwanger JV, Palmer E and Schiøtt CR: “Field
Observations and Modeling Production-Induced
Time-Shifts in 4D Seismic Data at South Arne, Danish
North Sea,” presented at the 69th EAGE Conference
and Exhibition, London, June 11–14, 2007.
27. Herwanger et al, reference 26.
Sayers C: “Monitoring Production Induced Stress-
Changes Using Seismic Waves,” presented at the SEG
International Exposition and 74th Annual Meeting,
Denver, October 10–14, 2004.
Herwanger JV and Horne SA: “Linking Geomechanics
and Seismics: Stress Effects on Time-Lapse Multi-
Component Seismic Data,” presented at the 67th
EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Madrid, Spain,
June 13–16, 2005.
Sayers CM: “Asymmetry in the Time-Lapse Seismic
Response to Injection and Depletion,” Geophysical
Prospecting 55 (September 2007): 699–705.
Sayers CM: “Sensitivity of Time-Lapse Seismic to
Reservoir Stress Path,” Geophysical Prospecting 54
(September 2006): 369–380.
Sayers CM: “Sensitivity of Elastic Wave Velocities to
Reservoir Stress Changes Caused By Production,”
paper ARMA/USRMS 06-1048, presented at the 41st US
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Golden, Colorado,
June 17–21, 2006.
Sayers CM: “Sensitivity of Elastic-Wave Velocities to
Stress Changes in Sandstones,” The Leading Edge 24,
no. 12 (December 2005): 1262–1267.

54 Oilfield Review

Top reservoir reflection
shifts toward later arrival
time and brightens
Bottom reservoir reflection
shifts toward later arrival
time and dims
Baseline survey
Monitor survey
> Monitoring compaction over time. A
comparison of traces using the same source and
receiver position between the baseline (green)
and monitor surveys (blue) shows the effect of
overburden stretching on the arrival time of the
seismic signal. Note the consistent shift toward
later arrival times of the monitor survey
compared with the baseline survey.
accompanied by another significant reservoir compartments. However, to understand
phenomenon—that of overburden stretching.23 and predict other geomechanical factors, such as
Resulting traveltime changes are significant and wellbore stability or rock failure, the triaxial
of a magnitude that could not be explained by stress state must be known. Recognizing this
nonrepeatability of survey acquisition geometry.24 need, Schlumberger and WesternGeco scientists
Seismic data confirmed that the reservoir are exploring the use of surface-seismic 4D
rock did not deform uniformly, and deformation measurements to characterize the change in
in the reservoir rock caused the surrounding rock tensor-stress over time.27
to deform. In this case, the differential deforma-
tion associated with reservoir compaction and an Future Developments
arching effect in the overburden resulted in The industry is striving to develop further
compressive stress relaxation and corresponding capabilities for integrating rock fabric into
stretching in the overburden. Similar overburden geomechanics analysis, with the vision of
time shifts were subsequently reported above enabling operators to extrapolate information
high-pressure, high-temperature reservoirs and from rock microstructure observations to the
certain deepwater-turbidite fields.25 core-sample scale, through the well-log scale and
The geomechanical implications of time- eventually up to the seismic scale. This capability
lapse time shifts are evaluated with reservoir will let operators track reservoir characteristics
geomechanical models to characterize along the extent of a play and beyond, to
production-induced subsurface deformation and locations where no well control exists. In doing
to predict associated stress changes. Established so, geomechanics may change not only the way
workflows allow geophysicists to compare that fields are drilled and produced, but also the
observed time-lapse time shifts against time way in which they are explored. To this end,
shifts predicted by the reservoir geomechanical researchers at Schlumberger are actively
models.26 Both subsurface deformation and stress investigating new laboratory measurement
changes influence the seismic traveltime, either techniques, wellbore logging methods, seismic
by changing the length of the path that a seismic measurements and modeling programs. Indeed,
wave must travel or by altering the propagation computational capabilities already exist; it is the
velocity of the seismic wave, respectively actual rock, its fabric, and the relation of fabric
(previous page). The workflows allow predictions to rock behavior that must be further
of traveltime changes to any point in a three- characterized. —MV
dimensional subsurface model.
Traveltime changes can also be observed from
4D seismic field experiments (left). The
prediction and observation of 4D traveltime
changes may be used to validate and calibrate
reservoir geomechanical models and thereby
improve their capability to predict stress
changes for a variety of projected production
scenarios. Furthermore, laboratory measure-
ments conducted on rock cores are helping E&P
companies learn more about changes in
ultrasonic velocities under various stress
conditions and saturation states. This allows
operators to better manage reservoir stress and
optimize the trade-off between compaction drive
of hydrocarbon production and unwanted
compaction problems such as wellbore failure
and reduced permeability.
At present, the observation of changes in
vertical traveltime is a common practice for
monitoring geomechanical changes such as
vertical stress and strain. This technique
provides useful information, and allows geophysi-
cists to identify compacting and noncompacting

Autumn 2007 55