SPE-196996-MS

The Sakhaling Offshore Field 4D Geomechanical Modeling for Fracturing

Planning

Milena Ganaeva, LLC RN-SakhalinNIPImorneft

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference held in Moscow, Russia, 22 – 24 October 2019.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The article presents the practical results of the building of a four-dimensional Mechanical Earth Model of
the field on the Sakhalin shelf. An analysis of the stress regimes, both regional and local, was carried out.
The model was built on an extensive data set, including core and wellbore studies, special logging and
leak test results, and allowed to evaluate the initial and current stress-strain behavior, reservoir compaction,
stress re-orientation. The article also details the methodology and details of building a four-dimensional
Mechanical Earth Model which can be useful for specialists in this area.
Important practical problems were solved on the model - the technological efficiency of MSHF was
proved and the efficiency of expensive compaction drilling was increased in offshore conditions. In addition,
the risks associated with the first MSHF planning in the region were evaluated, such as the fracturing of the
hydraulic fracturing crack into overlying aquifers, the development of crack in the horizontal direction, as
well as uncertainties caused by a limited set of data.

Relevance of the topic

Sakhalin region is one of the oldest oil and gas producing regions in the Russian Federation, and industrial
hydrocarbon production has been underway since the first quarter of the 20th century [2]. Over a century-
long history, the development of the main proven reserves on the land of the island occurred, and mining
has shifted to more complex geological and geographical conditions: to the great depths and shelf of the
Sea of Okhotsk.
In such a situation, the cost of wells drilling and interventions increases many times over, and the risk of
accidents during drilling increases due to difficult geological conditions. Geomechanical modeling while
accompanying drilling reduces the amount of non-productive time by reducing accident rates and preventing
complications for geological causes.
Another application of geomechanical modeling is optimization of hydraulic fracturing - the main event
to increase oil recovery from terrigenous reservoirs in Russia and around the world. For the subsoil user,
the MSHF on the Sakhalin shelf is a new experience, and planning of the event shall be approached with
special attention to detail.
2 SPE-196996-MS

In addition, it should be noted that the northern part of Sakhalin Island is located in the conditions of
the Far North, as well as in a very tectonically active region - the Pacific Ring of Fire, which leads to
increased requirements for industrial safety and environmental protection. Reducing accidents and taking
into account the tectonics of the region will also help to prevent environmental risks associated, in particular,
with hydrocarbon spills into the sea.

Objectives and tasks

The main objective of this work is to evaluate the effectiveness of MSHF in horizontal wells in the Sakhalin
shelf field.
Hydraulic fracturing is a common method of enhanced oil recovery for terrigenous reservoirs, but the
method has not been tested on the Sakhalin shelf, therefore a careful approach is required when planning
it. Considering the active tectonic regime and the abundance of faults complicating the field, lateral
heterogeneity of the reservoir and a long development period, it was decided to build a four-dimensional
Mechanical Earth Model that would allow all these data to be combined and correctly evaluate the dynamics
of the stress-strain behavior of the reservoir over time. Such a model is built on a geological three-
dimensional basis in close conjunction with hydrodynamic simulation and is calibrated to one-dimensional
Mechanical Earth Models using key wells. At the entrance to the Mechanical Earth Model, cubes of elastic
and strength properties of rocks, reservoir pressures and saturation are fed, and at the output they get cubes
of stresses and strains at the beginning of development and at any time point of the field life. In addition, the
algorithm of geomechanical calculations allows us to estimate reservoir compaction during the reduction
of reservoir pressure and take into account the impact of this effect on the wells productivity.
To achieve this goal it is necessary to perform a number of practical tasks:
1. Collection and analysis of initial information.
2. Conducting specialized studies of the mechanical properties of the core of the productive intervals
and fluid sealing rocks.
3. Construction of one-dimensional Mechanical Earth Models for a number of key holes.
4. Construction of a geological model with due reference to all available geological information.
5. Rescaling of geological model and performing hydrodynamic calculations on it.
6. Construction of a Mechanical Earth Model based on the re-scaled model and its calibration.
7. Estimation of production forecasts using fundamentally different types of completion by the method
of multivariate calculations on the hydrodynamic model.
8. Selection of optimal MSHF parameters based on the example of planned wells.
9. Optimization of the paths of the planned wells considering the current stress-strain behavior of the
reservoir.

Perspectives of MSHF on the Sakhalin shelf. Risk and uncertainty analysis

The field considered in this work is located on the territory of the Okhinsky District of the Sakhalin region
on the Northern Sakhalin shelf, 40 km from the town of Okha. The field was discovered in the seventies of
the past century, has a very complex geological structure, is multilayer, contains gas condensate and oil and
gas condensate deposits of various types - lithological, layer-uplifted.
Industrial oil and gas presence is confined to the Lower Nutovsky sub-horizon, like most oil and gas
fields in Northern Sakhalin [4]. There are three reservoirs at the field: XX-2, XXI-1, XXI-2.
Currently, the field is mature, is in the third stage of development, its operation has been going on for
about 20 years. However, in the bowels of the earth, there are still enough undeveloped reserves before
reaching the design ORF. For the most effective generation of residual recoverable reserves and an increase
in the enrollment ratio, it is necessary to consider the possibility of conducting MSHF in horizontal holes
SPE-196996-MS 3

drilled in the XX-2 reservoir. This reservoir is characterized by lateral heterogeneity compared with the
underlying seam. At the same time, reservoir properties on the eastern side are significantly worse than on
the western side; therefore, in order to effectively extract residual oil reserves, it is necessary to consider
the option of carrying out MSHF.
MSHF is an effective method of enhanced oil recovery and production enhancement in terrigenous
sediments around the world. In the offshore of the Sea of Okhotsk MSHF was not applied by the subsoil
user earlier which brings additional risks and uncertainties to the project.
The main uncertainties are associated with the elastic and strength properties of the tire of the productive
formation, since in fact there is no core in this interval. In order to assess the risk of a breakthrough through
a seal into overlying aquifers, an analysis of the capacity of the seal was made according to a geological
model. The roof of the seal was reconstructed from hole data (layer intersection) conformally to the roof of
the productive layer XX-2, then a map of the total thickness of the seal was made (Figure 1).

Figure 1—Chart of the total thickness of the target layer seal

The chart analysis showed that the seal capacity varies from 30 to 65 m which is sufficient to hold
the MSHF crack. Analysis of the sludge and fluid seals below the target formation showed that the
tire is composed of a interbedding of mudstones, chlidolites and low-permeability clayey aleurolites and
4 SPE-196996-MS

sandstones. Thus, from the point of view of the lithological composition, the seal does not have the best
holding properties for hydraulic fracturing, however, its capacity is sufficient to avoid breaking the fracture
into aquifers.
It is also necessary to consider the fact that the Sakhalin shelf is an extremely tectonically active region,
there is an uncertainty in the tectonic conditions. The regional tectonic conditions are defined as shear, due
to the presence of an active Hokkaido-Sakhalin strike-slip (Figure 2).

Figure 2—Analysis of the geodynamic situation in the area of work. Active faults identification (World Stress Map)

In general, the shear stress conditions are quite favorable for MSHF since the crack will develop vertically,
providing drainage of lenses and layers. In the upthrust (reverse) stress conditions, the smallest of the three
main stresses is a vertical one [5]. In this case, the conduct of hydraulic fracturing is inefficient, since the
crack develops horizontally and does not have a significant effect on the drainage of the reservoir.
In addition, there are a number of additional arguments in favor of the MSHF - reservoir heterogeneity,
low permeability, low field water content, sufficient thickness of the reservoir and seal, as well as the absence
of sand in the development process even with significantly (several times) reduced reservoir pressure (Figure
3).
SPE-196996-MS 5

Figure 3—Uncertainties and background to the MSHF implementation on the Sakhalin shelf

Benchmark data. Key holes selection

To build a complete Mechanical Earth Model, it is necessary to involve a number of multi-scale benchmark
data:
1. Acoustic and density logging;
2. The results of determining the mechanical properties of the core;
3. DST data, leak tests, hydraulic fracturing results;
4. Daily drilling reports with information on drilling fluids, ECD, drilling complications and accidents;
5. Holes design information;
6. Information about the lithological and stratigraphic structure of the crack.
For this object, the data complex is conditionally sufficient for geomechanical modeling. At the beginning
of work (2017) there were no data on the stress-strain behavior of the reservoir (leakage tests, hydraulic
fracturing results) and reliable core studies on the subject of mechanical properties, however, the necessary
studies during the work were performed by 2019 and made it possible to specify the medium model.
Special core studies were carried out in sufficient volume (about 100 samples) in the reservoir and seal
intervals and included determination of porosity and permeability under pressure conditions, dynamic and
static elastic moduli, compressive and tensile strengths.
The results obtained allowed us to construct correlation dependences for the restoration of the elastic and
strength properties of rocks in the section of holes, which were then used in one-dimensional and three-
dimensional geomechanical modeling.
The geophysical complex of studies varies from hole to hole. Altogether, 12 key holes were selected for
the construction of the model, which completely reveal the target reservoir, have a sufficiently GIS complex
and in which (in some cases) additional studies were carried out to calibrate the Mechanical Earth Model.
6 SPE-196996-MS

Building the Mechanical Earth Model

The construction of a three-dimensional Mechanical Earth Model begins with the construction of a series
of one-dimensional Mechanical Earth Models for a number of key holes. A Mechanical Earth Model for
one of the key holes with a full GIS complex is presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4—One-dimensional Mechanical Earth Model for the key hole. Target formation XX-2.

During the drilling process, special tests of FIT and exLOT allowed us to obtain the actual values of the
minimum stress gradient in the Upper and Lower Nouthen deposits, while geomechanical modeling and the
accompanying calibration made it possible to quite accurately determine the stress regime and remove the
geological risks associated with this uncertainty.
In the section of the key hole, three stress conditions are combined. In the upper part of the section, which
is composed of loose rocks of Neogene age, the uplift mode prevails, which is confirmed by the results of
the extended leak test: the actual measurement of the minimum stress falls on the rock pressure curve (see
SPE-196996-MS 7

Figure 5). Probably, this situation is due to the failure of the rapidly accumulated terrigenous stratum of
Upper Nutovsky deposits.

Figure 5—Calibration of main stresses for leak test under the casing

The shear conditions prevail below the section, which, however, at intervals of the reservoir passes into
the waste due to different elastic properties of the rock and fluid in the reservoir and the seal. With a
decrease in reservoir pressure, horizontal stresses decrease in accordance with the poroelastic model, and
the jump conditions are established with even greater certainty. In the Mechanical Earth Model at the start
of development, a shear conditions were implemented.
The stage following the construction of one-dimensional Mechanical Earth Models is the creation of a
3D/4D Mechanical Earth Model on a specially built geological basis in a two-way or one-sided combination
with hydrodynamic calculations. At the beginning of the modeling process, the geomechanical grid was
rebuilt. The horizontal dimensions of the geological and hydrodynamic model are approximately 6×12 km,
the Mechanical Earth Model has parameters of 50×66 km (see Figure 6). The total number of cells in the
geological and hydrodynamic model is 484 thousand cells, and in the geomechanical one there are 1.82
million cells.
8 SPE-196996-MS

Figure 6—Scales of geomechanical grid for modeling

For the purpose of geomechanical modeling of stresses and strains within reservoir XX-2, as well as
overlying strata, the following properties were distributed: bulk density of rocks, static Young's modulus,
dynamic Poisson's ratio, Biot's coefficient, limits of compressive and tensile strength, and the angle of
internal friction. Holes data, petrophysical dependencies, as well as trend cubes obtained from seismic data
analysis were used as the basis for the distribution of the listed properties. The basis of the distribution of
properties in all cases is a deterministic approach to modeling, the main methods are kriging and co-kriging.
Sections for the cubes of the main elastic properties are presented in Figure 7.

Figure 7—Sections in cubes of elastic properties: Young's static modulus (a) and Poisson's ratio (b).

After filling the model with elastic and strength properties, the stress-strain behavior is calculated at
the beginning of development with the use of the results of one-dimensional geomechanical and three-
dimensional hydrodynamic modeling.
SPE-196996-MS 9

The minimum horizontal voltage gradient was taken from the report on the interpretation of leak tests
and was 0.181 bar/m. The gradient of maximum horizontal stress was determined from one-dimensional
Mechanical Earth Models and amounted to 0.201 bar/m. The result of the calibration of the three-
dimensional Mechanical Earth Model at the beginning of the development of two vertical key holes is
presented in Figure 8.

Figure 8—An example of the calibration of the main stresses on the key holes.

After calibration of the model, the stress-strain behavior was calculated during the development process.
For the implementation of the tasks, the one-way ligament method was used, when the SSS calculation
is performed using the results of hydrodynamic modeling without updating the porosity and permeability
cubes, as well as the two-way cluster method [1].

Tensions re-orientation analysis

In terms of planning MSHF on an offshore facility, complicated by a large number of faults and located at
the third stage of development, it is very important to determine the direction of local minimum stresses
and, therefore, the direction of development of MSHF cracks.
Geomechanical modeling of 3D/4D allows you to calculate the local azimuth of stresses in each cell of
the model, as well as to estimate the reorientation of stresses over time [3]. According to regional geology,
analysis of faults, micro-imagers, within the sector, the direction of the minimum stress is 0-10 degrees,
the model is set to 0 degrees.
The calculation results show that the directions of local minimum stresses at the beginning of the
development deviate from the specified value by an average of 1-2 degrees (that is, slightly). During the
development of the field, reorientation is enhanced, especially in the areas of fracture accumulations. Maps
of the azimuths of the minimum stress for 2003 and 2018 are shown in Figure 9.
10 SPE-196996-MS

Figure 9—Evaluation of stress re-orientation over the 2003 to 2018 period

In the geological and geomechanical conditions of the XX-2 reservoir, there are prerequisites for a slight
stress re-orientation, namely:

• Small reservoir thickness and high dissection;

• Significant anisotropy of horizontal stresses, shear conditions;

• Average values of Young's modulus;

However, the presence of numerous faults and a long history of field development are indications for a
detailed analysis of stress reorientation, especially in the case of drilling wells in the zones of the presence
of faults and subsequent hydraulic fracturing implementation.

MSHF technological effectiveness

Based on the work done, the effectiveness of multi-stage hydraulic fracturing was evaluated for five design
horizontal holes.
First of all, based on the analysis of stresses, saturation and permeability, as well as faults, the optimal
locations were determined for the location of ports and packers of the MSHF in the wellbore of the project
holes. It is important to note that not one-dimensional predicted Mechanical Earth Models were used, but
current stress cubes calculated on a three-dimensional model. An example of the location of ports and
packers is presented in Figure 10.
SPE-196996-MS 11

Figure 10—An example of the arrangement of ports and packers on the example of a design horizontal hole

MSHF ports are located opposite the intervals with the highest values of the current coefficient of oil
saturation and at the same time with the lowest values of the absorption gradient, are isolated from each
other by packers. If faults are present within the productive part, they should also be isolated by packers to
avoid the absorption of hydraulic fracturing fluid.
The optimal number of MSHF stages per horizontal wellbore was determined in the process of
multivariate hydrodynamic modeling and comprised 7–9 stages, depending on the length of the horizontal
wellbore, bore intersecting faults and the density of residual reserves.
In the process of modeling, various methods of hydraulic fracturing modeling were used: using the skin
factor, the method of increasing the connectivity of the bottomhole formation zone with a hole, as well as
the method of specifying MSHF fractures and their parameters using a special plug-in for a hydrodynamic
simulator. The last option was considered the most effective. Unlike other options that showed either no
effect at all or incorrect estimates, specifying the fracture with the help of a plug-in allows to consider the
details of the fractures resulting from the creation of typical fracturing designs for a given formation. Also
an important input parameter is the cube of the directions of maximum horizontal stresses, which allows to
accurately determine the direction of development of the hydraulic fracturing fracture in the reservoir. The
parameters of cracks and their reversal considering horizontal stresses are shown in Figure 11.
12 SPE-196996-MS

Figure 11—Parameters of hydraulic fracturing fractures, implemented in the hydrodynamic model and
example of hydraulic fracturing fracture, taking into account the current stress-strain behavior of the reservoir

Thus, on the hydrodynamic model, the technological and economic efficiency of a multi-stage HF at
project holes was evaluated compared to the basic option (see Figure 12).

Figure 12—Comparison of the basic option with the one with MSHF

Thus, for this reservoir, completion of horizontal holes with MSHF is technologically effective and
recommended for implementation. However, in order to maximize the MSHF effectiveness, considering the
distribution of residual recoverable reserves and the current directions of the main stresses in the reservoir,
the hole path were adjusted to avoid reversal of the MSHF fractures along the wellbore, which is possible if
the angle between the maximum horizontal stress and the wellbore is less than 30 degrees. For this object,
this is not a trivial task, since traditionally holes here are drilled from the coast of Sakhalin Island into the
sea, with a large departure from the vertical and in the direction of the maximum horizontal stress (from
west to east). In order to avoid this, it is necessary to turn the horizontal section of the hole in the direction
from south to north while drilling, controlling the azimuth of the path. With large waste from the vertical
and total penetrations of more than 6000 m, it is necessary to test each path for drillability together with
specialists in drilling holes. The result of path optimization is presented in Figure 13.
SPE-196996-MS 13

Figure 13—Results of drilling program optimization with regard to geomechanical and hydrodynamic models

As an example there is the hole XX7 with an optimized path (Figure 14). The cumulative production
with MSHF will amount to 131 thousand tons in 20 years, without MSHF - only 68.7 thousand tons. At the
same time, the increase in start-up production will be 268%, and the increase in cumulative production in
the first 5 years of the hole operation will be 424%.

Figure 14—Evaluation of the MSHF technological efficiency at the hole XX7.

However, MSHF is recommended for implementation on the object under consideration not in all cases.
It is not recommended to conduct MSHF in heavily water-encroached parts of the reservoir, seams with high
permeability, as well as in the intervals of significantly reduced formation. In the central part of the reservoir,
the formation is sometimes reduced to 50 atm., with an initial formation of 140-150 atm. (Figure 15).
14 SPE-196996-MS

Figure 15—Current formations chart

Findings and practical significance of the work

Thus, within the framework of this work, a 3D/4D Mechanical Earth Model of the XX-2 productive stratum
of the oil and gas condensate field of the Sakhalin shelf was built, which reproduces the current and initial
stress-strain behavior of the reservoir and allows us to solve a number of applied problems, namely:

• Maintenance of drilling new production holes;

• MSHF planning and data generation for the creation of fracturing designs, taking into account the
current energy state of the reservoir;
• Risk and uncertainty analysis during drilling and hydraulic fracturing;

• Estimation of geomechanical effects significant for drilling and development, such as stress
reorientation, fault reactivation, reservoir compaction, etc.
• Justification of the technological efficiency of MSHF in new horizontal holes;
SPE-196996-MS 15

• Optimization of the program for drilling horizontal holes considering the directions of stresses in
the reservoir and the concentration of residual reserves.
This model is ongoing and is regularly updated as new information is available on the geological structure
of the reservoir, the mechanical properties of production horizons and seals, stress patterns, etc., operatively
providing engineers responsible for the development and implementation of the drilling program, specialist
of hydraulic fracturing, geologists and developers with all the necessary information about the object.

References
1. Ganaeva M. R., Sukhodanova S.S., Khaliulin Ruslan. R., Khaliulin Rustam. R. Building the
three-dimensional Mechanical Earth Model on the Sakhalin shelf in order to plan the multi-stage
hydraulic fracture of the reservoir // Petroleum establishment // No. 6-2018 // p. 108-111.
2. Gladenkov Yu. B., Bazhenova O. K., Grechin V.I. and others Cenozoic of Sakhalin island and its
petroleum potential. – M. : GEOS, 2002. – 225 p.
3. Pavlov V., Korelskiy E., Butula K., Klyubin A., Maksimov D., Zinovyev A., Zadvornov D.,
Grachev O., Building the 4D Mechanical Earth Model in order to determine the effect of field
development on the geometry of hydraulic fracturing fractures // SPE. – 2016.
4. Kharakhinov V. V. Oil and gas geology of the Sakhalin region – M.: Scientific world, 2010. – 276
p.
5. Zoback, M.D. Reservoir Geomechanics / M.D. Zoback, - Cambridge University Press, 2007.