Geomechanical Aspects of Formation Damage and Hydraulic Fracturing1

Geomechanics Aspects of Formation Damage and
Gildardo Osorio, Ph.D.

Hydraulic Fracturing
OUTLINE
1. The Geomechanical Fundamental Law for Hydraulic Fracture Optimization

2. General Types of Rock Failure
3. Types of Shear Failure
4. Tensile Failure
5. Generation of Shear and Tensile Failure Around the Wellbore
6. Hydraulic Fracture Optimization Based on Images Logs
7. Simulation of Hydraulic Fracture Phenomena
8. Some Geomechanics Risks Associated to Hydraulic Fracturing Operations
9. Concluding Remarks
1
The Geomechanical Fundamental Law for Hydraulic Fracture Optimization
Geomechanical Assurance of a Hydraulic Fracture = Interplay of Several Factors
Well Orientation
Stress State
Wellbore (Inclination &
Presure Azimuth) (Principal Stresses Otientations
& Magnitudes)
Rock Geomechanical Pore

Behavior Pressure
Controllable
Faults Fractures
Factors???
Other Factors
2
General Types of Rock Failure
σ2
σ1 σ3
Shear Failure
σ3 σ1 Tensile Failure
3
Types of Shear Failure

A shear failure occurs under significant stress anysotropy
Shear failure occurs if the shear “failure criterion” is reached
Criterio de Mohr Coulomb τ S = τ 0 + tan ϕ ⋅ σ N'

τs τ0 : Cohesive shear strength.
ilure
She
ar Fa
tanϕ : Frinction coefficient.
t3
t2
t1 * ** * ****** **** * * * **
** ** * * ** * * ** * **** *
σn
4

The geometry and orientation of the shear failure planes depend on:
There are six different possible ways

for stress ordering which generate six
different types of shear failures.
σa >σt >σr σa σr >σa >σt

σt >σa >σr σr >σt >σa
σa >σr >σt σt σr σt >σr >σa
5

Example: shear failure wide breakout (swbo): σt >σa >σr
Cavings Generation
Geometry and Orientation
Failure Plane:
radial – tangential plane.
Characteristics:
swbo The failure covers a large arch,
from 30o to 60o
Failed Region
Orientation:
In the direction of the minimum
horizontal stress
6
Type of Shear Failure - BREAKOUT
7
(Reinecker et al)
Tensile Failure: Necessary, Although not Sufficient, to Achieve a Successful Hydraulic Fracture
σ min
To
PP PP
Tensile Failure is generated when the minimum effective stress is less than the rock
tensile strength :
σ min
σ min + To
σ 'min ≤ To → PWellbore ≥
α σ max σ max
PP
To = Rock Tensile Strength
σ min 8
Tensile Failure: Necessary, Although not Sufficient, to Achieve a Successful Hydraulic Fracture
Tensile failure occurs if the tensile “failure criterion” is reached
τs
a i lure
ar F
She
t3
t1
t2
σn
To
Pw
9
Types of Tensile Failure
The geometry and orientation of a tensile failure depends on the direction of the
minimum effective stress (σr, σa o σt).
σr σt
σa
Tensile Failure
Tensile Failure Tensile Failure
Cylindrical
Horizontal Vertical
(Tcyl)
(Thor) (Tver)
10
Generation of Shear and Tensile Failure Around the Wellbore
σH
Minimum Tangential
TENSILE Stress
FRACTURE
σh
BREAKOUT Maximum Tangential

Stress
11

Relationship between stress state, rock geomechanical characterization and shear & tensile failure
Low value of (σtmax-σtmin) Ideal case: σtmin σtmax

τ e (σtmax-σtmin) = 1.0
v elop
ure en
F ail
σ
σtmin σtmax σtmax
Wellbore Stability
High value of (σtmax-σtmin)

τ σtmi
re
ailu n
h ear F
S
σ
σtmin σtmax
σtmax-σtmin 12

If the well is NOT aligned with the fracture preferential plane, the tensile fracture may never
be reached – Field Case – Geomechanical data for Well X
DATA
In Situ Stresses
Horizontal maximun stress gradient 1.35 (psi/ft)
Horizontal minimum stress gradient 0.77 (psi/ft)
Vertical stress gradient 1.00 (psi/ft)
Well orientation
Deviation hole 20.0 (deg)
Well Azimuth 110.0 (deg)
Depth (TVD) 14735 (ft)
Geomechanic properties
Tensil strenght 543 (psi)
Poisson's ratio 0.27 (adimen)
13
Pore Pressure 4510 (psi)

Field Case: (a) Stresses acting tangential to the wellbore walls, and (b) fracture plane azimuth
for Well X
(a)
Stress acting in a plane tangential to the borehole w alls (b)
Degrees
0 90 180 270 360
Borehole Shape
2.0 Fracture plane azimut
1.8 N1
350
351
347
344
345
343
341
342
340
339
338
337
356
357
353
352
348
349
346 358
359
354
355 2 2345678910
360 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Sh
335
336
334
333
332
331 26
27
28
29
30
31
1.6 330
329
328
327 32
33
34
35
326
325
324
323
322 36
37
38
39
40
321
320
319
318 41
42
43
44
317
316
315
314 45
46
47
48
1.4 SH306313
312
311
310
309
308
307
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
305
304
303 57
58
59
302
301
300 1 60
61
62
299
298
297 63
64
65
1.2 296
295
294
293
66
67
68
69
Stress / SH
292
291
290 70
71
72
289
288
287 73
74
75
286
285
284 76
77
78
1.0 283
282 79
80
281
280
279 81
82
83
278
277
276 84
85
86
275 87
0.8
274
W
273
272
271
270
269 0
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
E
268
267 95
266
265
264 96
97
98
263
262
261 99
100
101
260
259 102
103
0.6 258
257
256
255
254
104
105
106
107
108
253
252
251 109
110
111
250
249
248 112
113
114
247
246
245 115
116
117
0.4 244
243
242
241
240
118
119
120
121
122
239
238
237 123
124
125
236
235
234 126
127
128
233
232
231 129
130
131
0.2 230
229
228
227
226
225
132
133
134
135
136
137
224
223
222
221 138
139
140
141
220
219
218
217 142
143
144
145
216
215
214
213
212 146
147
148
149
150
0.0 211
210
209
208
207
206
205
204
203
202
201
200
151
152
153
154
156
155
157
158
159
160
162
161
199
198
197
196
195
194
193
192
191
190
189
188
187 175
174 168
172
171
170
173 163
165
164
167
166
169
186
185
184
183
182 180
179
178
177
176
-0.2 181
SH Sh SH S
N Sh E S W
Radial stress Max. tang. stress Min. tang. stress 14

Field Case: Minimum Injection Pressure to Initiate Fracturing as function of well
inclination for Well X
Ge ome chanical Compone nt of Piny v s We ll Inclination
11000
Geomechanical comp. of Injection
10000
pressure (psi)
9000
8000
Well Azimuth: 110

7000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
We ll Inclination (de gre e s )

15
To = 543 psi To = 1195 psi

50000
45000
Field Case: Points of Shear and 40000

Esfuerzo Shear
0 4662.58
Tensile Failure for Well X 1000 5734.95
35000 2000 6807.32
3000 7879.68
30000 4000 8952.05
τ (psi)
5000 10024.42
25000 10000 15386.25
T0 20000 26109.93
30000 36833.60
20000
40000 47557.27
!!! FRACTURE GRADIENT 50000 58280.94
WAS NEVER REACHED for 15000
Well X !!!! 10000
5000
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 16
σ Tang max σ (psi) σ Tang min
In Summary
1. There are basically two types of rock failure: shear and tensile failure.
2. Conditions determining the type of failure include:
- Principal stress magnitudes and orientation.
- Wellbore orientation
- Rock mechanical properties
- Wellbore pressure
3. To initiate a hydraulic fracture, it is imperative to meet the necessary conditions to
generate a tensile failure.
17
Hydraulic Fracture Optimization Based on Images Logs

UBI showing an excellent resolution of breakout orientation leading to an approximate maximum
stress orientation, on the sandface, equal to N84E. This maximum stress orientation is quite
uniform below and above this interval. This latter observation suggests that the fracture has
good possibility for propagating above and below this interval.
σtmin σtmax
σtmax
18
σtmin

UBI showing a very good population of high and low quality natural fractures. The presence of high quality
fractures will surely cause very serious screenout.
The highly quality fractures will likely close once a pressure drawdown between the reservoir and the well
takes place. This may result in a significant production decline shortly after opening the well to
production
Will placing proppant before the pressure drawdown avoid this production decline?
19

UBI showing high probability of stress variation with depth. Fracture containment and high
fracture gradients are expected
20

DSI confirming the strong stress variation with depth observed from the UBI (previous slide).
Stress variation occurs when lithology changes take place
Fracture containment and high fracture gradients are expected
21

DSI showing strong stress variation with depth. Stress variation occurs within the same
lithology.
Fracture containment and high fracture gradients are expected
22

DSI showing: (a) Maximum stress orientation of N70W approximately
(b) Good anisotropy
(c) Optimum orientation of 180 phased perforations angles: N70W
23
Maximum Why 180 phased perforations angles?

Stress
Direction Maximum
Stress
Direction
Non-oriented
perforations
To minimize tortuosity, orient perforations

in the maximum stress direction Perforating in the minimum stress
direction increases near wellbore
24
friction and screen-out possibility

Reflection Behavior vs. Washouts
Reflection behavior of the Stonley Log
Good Conductivity
Low washout
Good Conductivity?
Moderate washout
25
Simulation of Hydraulic Fracture Phenomena

Hydraulic Fracturing is a Fully Coupled Fluid-Flow/Deformation Process
Fully Coupled Pore Pressure – Rock

Conventional Deformation Simulation
Simulation
Fluid Stress Rock

Fluid Flow Flow Changes Deformation
Dinamic Static Rock

Dynamic Dynamic
Fluid Nature Nature
Fluid Nature Rock Nature
26
Input Data Importance

CASE 1 CASE 2
High Quality Input Data Poor Quality Input Data
GEOMECHANICAL GEOMECHANICAL
MODEL MODEL
High Quality Output Data Poor Quality Output Data
27

Input Data Sources
Potential Data Sources For Geomechanical Characterization
Density Log Oriented Caliper

Vertical Stress Stress Orientation
Formation Density Stress Magnitude
Mechanical Properties Rock Strength
Rock Strength Breakout Characteristics
DSI
Gamma ray log
Rock strength anisotropy
Litology (acoustic velocities) P & S
waves correlations 28

Potential Data Sources For Geomechanical Characterization
Sonic Log Borehole Images (UBI) XLOT
Pore pressure Principal stress Orientations Minimum Horizontal Stress

Geomechanical Properties Induced and Natural fractures Rock Strength
Rock Strength Borehole failures (mechanisms)
Bedding planes RFT or MDT
Pore pressure
Cores (two overburden cores)
Rock strength
Static Geomechanical Properties
Unconfined Compressive Stress (UCS)
Calibration of Information from Logging and Cavings
Stress – Strain relations.
ASR / DSCA Tests
Failure Envelopes 29

us e g/ft
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Example of Characterization of
2600
2800
Formation Mechanical Properties and

3000
3200
Strength
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
4400
Calibration and Prediction of Actual Data. 4600
4800
5000
5200
Actual vs. Calculated ∆ts – Well XX 5400

5600
MD
5800
6000
6200
6400
6600
6800
7000
7200
7400
7600
7800
8000
8200
8400
8600
8800
DT Compres - Actual DT Compres - Calculated

30
DT Corte - Actual DT Corte - Calculated
Simulation of Hydraulic Fracture Phenomena – Characterization of Formation Mechanical
Properties and Strength
UCS Liria YZ10 Tensil Strength - Liria YZ10 Young Liria YZ10
Poisson Liria YZ10
psi psi psi
-5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -3000000 0 3000000 6000000 9000000
2600 2600 2600 2600
2800 2800 2800 2800
Guayabo Guayabo Guayabo Guayabo
3000 3000 3000 3000
3200 3200 3200 3200
3400 3400 3400 3400
3600 3600 3600 3600
Charte Charte Charte Charte
3800 3800 3800 3800
4000 4000 4000 4000
4200 4200 4200 4200
4400 4400 4400 4400
4600 4600 4600 4600
León 4800
4800 4800 4800
León León León
5000 5000 5000 5000
5200 5200 5200 5200
TVD
TVD
5400
TVD
5400
TVD
5400 5400
5600 5600 5600 5600
5800 5800 5800 5800
C1
6000 6000 6000 6000
C1 C1 C1
6200 6200 6200 6200
6400 6400 6400 6400
6600 6600 6600 6600
6800 6800 6800 6800
7000 7000 7000 7000
7200 7200 7200 7200
C2 C2 C2 C2
7400 7400 7400 7400
7600 7600 7600 7600
7800 7800 7800 7800
C3 C3 C3 C3
8000 8000 8000 8000 31
8200 Calculated properties based
C4
8200 on offset wells vs
C4
properties
8200
based on actual data from
8200 an offset well C4 C4

Characterization of Stress State – MINIMUM STRESS
Hydraulic Fracture Test
Pe ≡ Net Fracture Pressure

Pw
Well Shut-in
Closure Pressure
Reservoir Static
Pressure
Time 32
Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing - Stress State Characterization – MINIMUM STRESS
Pw
Production
Time
Fracture
Injection/Production
Closure
Tests
Time
Open Fracture Linear Radial

Flow Flow Close Fracture
33

Characterization of Stress State – VERTICAL STRESS
Z = σv
σZ = Overburden weigth
σH
σh
σ Z = ∫ ρ (Z )⋅g ⋅dz
Z
0
Z=0
∆z 1 n
∆z 2 σ Z = ∑ ρi ⋅gi ⋅∆Zi
i =1
σz
∆z n ρ(z) : Density Log
Z=Z
σx
σy Reservoir
34

Characterization of Stress State – MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL STRESS
Indirect Methods. For Example - ASR (Aneslastic Strain Recovery)
c) Laboratory measurement of
∆ε v
∆ε v
stabilized strains
∆ε H
∆ε h
∆ε h
∆ε H
Time
Example: Warpinski & Teufel visco-elastic model
d) Estimation of maximum
horizontal stress from a
σ = (σ − αp )
(1 − υ )∆ε + υ (∆ε
H H
+ ∆ε )
v
+ αp
mathematical model H v
(1 − υ )∆ε + υ (∆ε
v H
+ ∆ε )
h
35

Application of Geo-statistics to estimate spatial and temporal stress
distributions
36
Application of Hybrid Coordinates to Simulate Local Events
Main Difficulty
37

Results are strongly affected by grid refinement
Pozo
Conventional Refinement Multigrid Refinement
38

Complex numerical solutions lead to:
(a) Realistic estimations spatially and temporally
(b) Take into account nature complexities (faults, stress variations, permeability changes, …)
.
i,j,k-1
i,j-1,k
. i,j,k
. . i+1,j,k DC
i-1,j,k . i,j,k+1 . . i,j+1,k S

C
W
N
r E
θ UC
z 39
Simulation of Hydraulic Fracture Phenomena – Fully Coupled Geomechanics Simulation

Simulated Final Fracture Geometry Simulated Fracture Propagation
Variación Espacial del Estado de Esfuerzos
40000
Sigma x
35000
Sigma y
30000 Sigma z
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
750 770 790 810 830 850 870 890
Longitud x (ft)
(Lagos, Jiménez & Osorio, 2003) 40

Some Geomechanics Risks Associated to Hydraulic Fracturing

Fracture Reactivation - Geomechanical Behavior of Fractured Zones
Smin
Smax
A Fault: Actually a fault plus its related
fracture system
0.4
µ = 1.0 µ = 0.6
τ/Sv
0.2
0.0
(After Nelson, 2001) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
41
(σn- Pp)/Sv
Some Geomechanics Risks Associated to Hydraulic Fracturing

Conditions for Fault Reactivation (Field case: Well W1)
1.8
Ts = τs/(σN-Pp)
1.5 Theta =0
Theta = 15
1.2
S1 = 1.2psi/ft. S3 = 0.67 psi/ft Ts
0.9
Theta
Theta
= 30
= 45
Theta = 60
0.6 Theta = 75
0.3
Theta = 90
6000
Initial Situation µ=1 0
Current Situation 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500
µ = 0.6
4000 Pf
τ
2000 1.05 Plane Friction Coefficient
0 µ 0.85
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0.65
σ N - Pp
0.45
3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
42
Pp
Some Geomechanics Risks Associated to Hydraulic Fracturing Operations
Correlation between flow directionality and local orientation of stresses
Evidence from Ekofisk Evidence from Lost Hills
σHmax B22c
153 md
B16a
82 md
Kmin = 36 md (Preferential
B19a flow direction)
B24a Kmax = 159 md
(After Heffer and Koutsabelouilis, 1996)

(After Teufel and Farrel, 1992) 43
Correlation between flow directionality and local orientation of stresses
General Ideal Case

Preferential Flow Direction
Smax Producer
Inyector
(After Wolhart et al, 2000) 44
Stress Re-orientation Close to the Fault

Actual Geometry
a ult
F
Sm
ax
45

Are Hydraulic Fractures Planes?
EXAMPLE: Perkins & Kern Model Actual Geometry?

xf
hf
46

Results of Exploratory Coring

Showing Large Number of
Fracture Intercepts
(After Warpinski & Teufel, 1987) 47


PROPAGATION DIRECTION
Visualization of Results of
Fracture Treatment in
Jointed Rock Mass
TS
JOIN
HYDRAULIC
FRACTURES
σmáx
σmin
6
(After Warpinski & Teufel, 1987) – 48
Hydraulic Fracture Geometry and Orientation INTERFACE

0
DISTANCE BELOW INTERFACE (M)

1
Vertical Variations in the

Minimum in-Situ Stress
2
CFE-1
CFE-2
CFE-3
3
CFE-4
4
0 2 4 6 8
49
(After Warpinski & Teufel, 1987) MINIMUM IN SITU STRESS (MPA)

Schematic of the Effect of in-Situ Stresses on hydraulic Fractures
WELDED
TUFF
MATERIAL PROPERTY INTERFACE
ASH FALL
FRACTURES
TUFF TREMINATE
AT STRESS
PEAKS.
FRACTURES OCASIONALLY
CONTAINED FRACTURES
BY STRESS PENETRATE
PEAK
A STRESS PEAK
MINIMUN
PRINCIPAL
(After Warpinski & IN SITU
FRACTURE INITIATION POINT
Teufel, 1987) STRESS 50
DISTRIBUTION
COCLUDING REMARKS
1. From a geomechanical standpoint, hydraulic fracturing is the interplay of several
factors: wellbore pressure, well orientation, stress state, geomechanical properties, pore
pressure, faults, fractures, etc. It is imperative to take into account the interaction among
these factors for reaching optimum results.
2. There are basically two types of rock failure: shear and tensile failure. It is necessary to
guarantee the necessary conditions to generate a tensile fracture in order to initiate a
hydraulic fracture.
3. Image logs (such as UBI and DSI) are extremely useful to select the most convenient
intervals for optimum fractures.
4. Proper hydraulic fracturing simulation demands of modeling fully coupled fluid-
flow/deformation processes. In this latter case, it is imperative to acquire high quality
geomechanical characterization as input data.
5. Some geomechanics risks associated to hydraulic fracturing include: fault reactivation,
fracture reactivation, generation of problematic preferential flow directions, complex
fracture geometries, fracture undesired containment.
51

Geomechanical Aspects of Formation Damage and Hydraulic Fracturing1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geomechanical Aspects of Formation Damage and Hydraulic Fracturing1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geomechanics Aspects of Formation Damage and

Gildardo Osorio, Ph.D.

1. The Geomechanical Fundamental Law for Hydraulic Fracture Optimization

The Geomechanical Fundamental Law for Hydraulic Fracture Optimization

Geomechanical Assurance of a Hydraulic Fracture = Interplay of Several Factors

Rock Geomechanical Pore

General Types of Rock Failure

Types of Shear Failure

Shear failure occurs if the shear “failure criterion” is reached

Criterio de Mohr Coulomb τ S = τ 0 + tan ϕ ⋅ σ N'

Types of Shear Failure

There are six different possible ways

σa >σt >σr σa σr >σa >σt

Types of Shear Failure

Type of Shear Failure - BREAKOUT

Tensile failure occurs if the tensile “failure criterion” is reached

Types of Tensile Failure

Generation of Shear and Tensile Failure Around the Wellbore

BREAKOUT Maximum Tangential

Generation of Shear and Tensile Failure Around the Wellbore

Low value of (σtmax-σtmin) Ideal case: σtmin σtmax

High value of (σtmax-σtmin)

Generation of Shear and Tensile Failure Around the Wellbore

Generation of Shear and Tensile Failure Around the Wellbore

Generation of Shear and Tensile Failure Around the Wellbore

Well Azimuth: 110

We ll Inclination (de gre e s )

Generation of Shear and Tensile Failure Around the Wellbore

Field Case: Points of Shear and 40000

Well X !!!! 10000

Hydraulic Fracture Optimization Based on Images Logs

Hydraulic Fracture Optimization Based on Images Logs

Hydraulic Fracture Optimization Based on Images Logs

Hydraulic Fracture Optimization Based on Images Logs

Hydraulic Fracture Optimization Based on Images Logs

Hydraulic Fracture Optimization Based on Images Logs

Hydraulic Fracture Optimization Based on Images Logs

Maximum Why 180 phased perforations angles?

To minimize tortuosity, orient perforations

Hydraulic Fracture Optimization Based on Images Logs

Reflection behavior of the Stonley Log

Simulation of Hydraulic Fracture Phenomena

Fully Coupled Pore Pressure – Rock

Fluid Stress Rock

Dinamic Static Rock

Simulation of Hydraulic Fracture Phenomena

Input Data Importance

High Quality Input Data Poor Quality Input Data

High Quality Output Data Poor Quality Output Data

Simulation of Hydraulic Fracture Phenomena

Potential Data Sources For Geomechanical Characterization

Density Log Oriented Caliper

Simulation of Hydraulic Fracture Phenomena

Sonic Log Borehole Images (UBI) XLOT

Pore pressure Principal stress Orientations Minimum Horizontal Stress

Simulation of Hydraulic Fracture Phenomena

Formation Mechanical Properties and

Actual vs. Calculated ∆ts – Well XX 5400

DT Compres - Actual DT Compres - Calculated

Simulation of Hydraulic Fracture Phenomena

Hydraulic Fracture Test

Pe ≡ Net Fracture Pressure

Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing - Stress State Characterization – MINIMUM STRESS

Open Fracture Linear Radial