Geomechanicalcharaterizationof Roseneath Shalegas

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/320134815
Geomechanical characterization of potential Roseneath Shale Gas, Cooper

Basin, Australia
Article in ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences · September 2017
CITATIONS READS
7 1,594
3 authors:
Omer Iqbal Maqsood Ahmad

The University of Arizona Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
15 PUBLICATIONS 69 CITATIONS 40 PUBLICATIONS 289 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Askury Abd Kadir

Geodream Solutions
6 PUBLICATIONS 46 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Omer Iqbal on 17 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

VOL. 12, NO. 17, SEPTEMBER 2017 ISSN 1819-6608
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences
©2006-2017 Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN). All rights reserved.
www.arpnjournals.com
GEOMECHANICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF POTENTIAL ROSENEATH

SHALE GAS, COOPER BASIN, AUSTRALIA
Omer Iqbal1, Maqsood Ahmad1 and A. P. Askury Abd Kadir2
1
Department of Petroleum Engineering, University Teknologi PETRONAS (UTP), Perak, Malaysia
2
Department of Petroleum Geoscience, University Teknologi, PETRONAS (UTP), Perak, Malaysia
E-Mail: omer.iqbal_g03384@utp.edu.my
ABSTRACT
Roseaneath and Murteree shale in Cooper basin, South Australia are proven seal, source as well as shale gas
reservoir rock. Source rock characterization as a potential gas requires extensive understanding about the geomechanical
properties for optimization of stimulation treatment and in order to avoid well bore instability and sand production during
drilling and completion stages. Fifteen samples were selected from Moomba 191 well (depth 8473--8475 ft) drilled in
Cooper Basin by DSD, Australia. The Triaxial compression and unconfined compression tests were performed on samples
in order to find static geomechanical properties. The wireline logs like sonic and density were used to find dynamic
mechanical properties. The calibrations were carried out between static and dynamic parameters in order to get reliable
calibrated values. The 1-D Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) was developed based on elastic parameters (Young’s modulus,
Poison’s ratio), failure parameters (Cohesion, internal friction angle, compressive strength and tensile strength), in-situ
stresses, pore pressure and mud weight. The calibrated Young’s modulus and Poison’s ratio were ranging from 15 GPa to
30 GPa and 0.20 to 0.3 respectively. Brittleness analysis (BI) (ranges from 0.2-0.78) exhibited brittle and ductile layers
within the whole shale interval. The Brittle index (BI), Young’s modulus and poison’s ratio on brittle layers were range
from 0.4 to 0.78, greater than 25 GPa and <0.3 respectively for brittle layers. Based on failure parameters, insitue stresses
and mud weight three possible locations for wellbore breakouts, fractures, has been identified where special considerations
are needed to select the mud weight in order to avoid the problems i.e. sand production, wellbore instability. The strongest
depths for minimum wellbore stability have been identified that have also high BI (0.6 to 0.69) and can be potential target
for stimulation. Based on results, it has been concluded that this Roseneath shale interval of Moomba 191 well have many
critical zones based on limits of upper and lower safe mud weight window where extra care need to be taken. The normal
stress regime exhibited that fractures orientation will be perpendicular to minimum horizontal stresses.
Keywords: shale gas, brittleness, 1-D MEM.
INTRODUCTION However, very limited work has been done on

Over the past decade, the interest of industries geomechanical properties in term of elastic parameters
has been increasing towards unconventional resources (Poison’s ratio, Young’s modulus, Bulk modulus), failure
(coalbed methane, shale oil, tight gas, shale gas and gas parameters (Cohesion, internal friction angle, Unconfined
hydrates) because of increase in energy demand, depletion compressive strength, tensile strength) and insitue stresses,
in conventional resources and advancement in stimulation pore pressure mud weight for breakout, mud weight for
technology. Among all unconventional resources, shale fracture. The dynamic parameters was measured from
gas has been producing for many years in United States, wireline logs (Sonic, resistivity, density) and static
Europe, China, Asia and Australia [1]. In Australia there parameters was measured but conducting laboratory
are certain major basins have been identified as gas prone experiments like Triaxial compression and Unconfined
like Perth, Canning, Maryborough and Cooper basin. Compressive strength (UCS) on shale gas samples from
However, the Cooper basin is main Australia’s onshore Moomba 191 well and based on these parameters the 1D-
gas basin that contains potential Roseneath-Epsilon- Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) was developed which
Murteree (REM) shale formations. can be applicable for different purposes like stimulation,
These formations have been studied by different wellbore stability problems, sand production, reservoir
researchers. Notably, [2]and [1] and Ahmad and compaction and surface subsidence. We also analyzed the
Haghighi, (2012,2013) did detailed petrophysical and influence of mineralogy on mechanical properties like
mineralogical study of these two formations for mineral Brittleness, Young’s modulus and poison’s ratio. But still
quantification , and pores, natural fractures identifications there is need to make 3D model for better delineation of
by using Quantitative Evaluation of Minerals Using variation of mechanical properties. The well location and
Scanning Electron Microscopy (QEMSCAN) , XRD, study area is shown in Figure-1 below.
Computerized Tomography (CT) and FIB/SEM for rock
characterization. They came up with conclusion that
Roseneath and Murtereshale contain high level of
heterogeneity, macro and micro level natural fractures.
While [1] conducted research on geomechanical
characterization of Roseneath and Murteree shale in term
of static elastic parameters
5221
must be integrated [5]. The total organic matter,

permeability, porosity and mechanical properties can be
calculated from both logs and laboratory [6]; and [7]. The
workflow of MEM is given below in Figure-1.
Geomechanical characterization is vital to
understand the fracture creation and propagation. The
brittleness estimation can help in selection of fluid for
stimulation. The layer with brittleness index greater than
40% considered brittle [8]. The hydraulic fractures are
more likely generate at zone with low tensile strength,
poison’s ratio, confining pressure and high Young’s
modulus and Brittleness [9]. The main parameters used to
explain elastic deformation are Young’s modulus and
Poison’s ratio. Brittleness can be estimated by using
elastic parameters as proposed by Rickman al., 2008. The
workflow of methodology is given below in Figure-2:
Figure-2. Workflow of 1-D mechanical earth model.
There are two methods to measure geomechanical

properties ,one is dynamic mechanical properties using
wireline logs (Sonic and density), second is static
properties by laboratory experiments like Unconfined
Compression test and Triaxial Compression Tests on
samples. The dynamic values are always higher than static
values that must be calibrated with static ones. Based on
Figure-1. The General Stratigraphy of Cooper Basin, static and dynamic Young’s modulus and Poison’s ratio
showing Nappamerri and Gidgealpa groups (Permian the brittleness was estimated by using Rickman approach.
Roseaneath -Epsilon-Murteree shale marked in while red The Triaxial compression tests and unconfined
arrow showing studied formation (Primary Industries and compressive strength tests were conducted on fifteen
Resources South Australia report 2011). samples and the results were provided by DSD
(Department of State Development) energy resource
METHODOLOGY system. The static elastic parameters (Poison’s ratio,
Young’s modulus), failure parameters (Cohesion, internal
1-D Mechanical Erath Model (MEM) friction angle, Unconfined compressive strength) were
The better understanding of geomechanics helps determined. Based on all geomechanical properties the 1-
to minimize the risk related to stimulation, drilling and D Mechanical Earth Model was developed. The model
wellbore stability. Geomechanical Erath Model was completed by following different steps. First Dynamic
quantitatively shows mechanical properties and earth’s elastic parameters were calculated from sonic log (P and
insitue stresses. MEM helps to minimize problems created S-waves velocity) and density log data [12] by following
by stresses like wellbore instability, fracture orientation equations given below:
for hydraulic fracturing and predicting overpressure zones
𝛥𝑇𝑠
[11]. The MEM covered all information like rock [{ − }]
𝛥𝑇
mechanical properties, rock failure mechanisms, in-situe 𝜈 𝑦 = 𝛥𝑇𝑠 (1)
[{ − }]
𝛥𝑇
stresses, geologic structure, stratigraphy and well
geometry [3]. The properties such as Young’s modulus,
. 8
Poison’s ratio, cohesion, angle of friction, shear modulus, Edy = [ + νdy ]. [ρ . ]. ( )
compressive strength, compressive and tensile strength ΔTs
and their variation in different direction to compute
anisotropy [4]. For optimization of hydraulic fracture BI E  BI V
treatment, geomechanics, mineralogy and petrophysics
BI  (3)
2
5222
E  Emin Where; P = Pore pressure, σv= Overburden, ΔTn

BI E  (4) = Sonic transit time (μs/ft), ΔT log = Sonic log observed
Emax  Emin values, Phyd = Normal hydrostatic pressure.
The effective vertical stresses (  v ) were
'
V  Vmax
BI v  (5) determined using equation below[10]:
Vmin  Vmax
 ' v   v  Pp (10)
Where Vdyn= dynamic poison’s ratio while Edyn =
dynamic Young’s modulus and ∆Ts =Shear slowness ∆Tp
= compressional slowness and ρb= bulk density from logs,  ' h   h  Pp (11)
BI= Brittleness Index and Emin, Emax, Vmin and Vmax are
minimum and maximum Young’s modulus (E) and All total and effective vertical stresses were
poisson’s ratio (V). Similarly, BIE and BIV are brittleness plotted against depth as shown below. For maximum and
based on Young’s modulus (E) and poison’s ratio (V) The minimum horizontal stresses the following equations were
log values were calibrated with static Young’s modulus used a given below [10]
and Poison’s ratio by plotting graph between static and
dynamic Young’s modulus and Poison’s ratio to get  E
calibrated values. The calibrated graphs are shown in h  ( v  Pp )  Pp  (12)
Figures below. Then calibrated values of failure 1  1  2
parameters like Cohesion (c) and internal friction angle (φ)
were obtained by plotting graph between lab based failure  E
parameters like Cohesion (c) and internal friction angle (φ) H  ( v  Pp )  Pp  (13)
1  1  2
with porosity to get calibrated values of whole interval.
Then unconfined compressive strength were calculated
Where σh = minimum horizontal stress, v =
using failure parameters (c and φ) by using geometric
poison’s ratio, α= alpha, Pp= pore pressure, E= Young’s
equation below. modlus, σv = vertical tress and “Epsilon” Ɛ =strain factor
and then by using strain factor and above equations the
UCS (𝐶𝑂 = (6) maximum and minimum horizontal stresses were
[𝐶 – − 𝑖  𝑎 ]
determined. The graphs between all stresses and pore
Then UCS values were plotted against depth as pressure were plotted and shown below. One of the most
shown in Figures below. The Tensile strength was important applications of the MEM is to define the safe
calculated for whole interval using relation below [9]: mud weight to avoid any serious problem during drilling.
Keeping in mind the four limits (two upper and two lower)
𝐶 C for safe drilling operation, safe mud weight windows were
𝑇𝑒 𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑒 𝑔ℎ 𝑇 = (7)
8 determined. Four limits for mud weight (Fjaer et al., 2008)
are defined as:
Then graph between Tensile strength with depth
plotted as shown below in Figures. The vertical a) 1st Upper limit to avoid borehole collapse. Mud
overburden stress was calculated by integrating density weight (Pw) should be less than this limit to avoid
logs [12]: shear failure or collapse that cause stuck pipe, tight
hole etc. problems.
σz=ʃρ(z).g.dz (8)
Pw [ σh − σH tan − Pf tan − +C ] (14)
Where σz is overburden stress, ρ is formation t 2 β+
density, and g is the gravitational acceleration. Then

minimum horizontal stresses were calculated using leak b) 2nd Upper limit to avoid induced fractures. Mud
off test (LOT) data from well completion report. The LOT weight (Pw) should be less than this limit to avoid
data was given for 8416ft depth. Pore pressure (P) is very fractures that cause loss circulation.
important in MEM preparation and needed for determining
the effective stresses. Extensively used Eaton’s approach 𝑃 𝜎ℎ − 𝜎𝐻 − 𝑇 + 𝑃 (15)
[13] was applied to estimate the pore pressure using sonic
data as illustrated in Trendline was drawn using sonic log c) 1st Lower limit to avoid borehole collapse. Mud
values for particular depth values. Eaton Equation for Pore weight (Pw) should be higher than this limit to avoid
pressure determination is given as: shear failure or collapse that cause stuck pipe, tight
hole etc. problems.
.
𝛥
𝑃 = 𝜎 − (𝜎 − 𝑃ℎ𝑦 ) ( ) (9) 𝑃 [ 𝜎𝐻 − 𝜎ℎ + 𝑃𝑓 𝑎 − −𝐶 ] (16)
𝛥 𝑙 𝑔 2 𝛽+
𝑎
5223
d) 2nd Lower limit is formation pressure. Mud weight however, there is no relationship observed between
should be higher than formation pressure in order to poison’s ratio and Young’s modulus. The calibrated
avoid kick or blowout problems. failure parameters like internal friction angle, cohesion,
compressive strength and tensile strength are ranging from
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 18.11 to 56.898 degrees, 5.5 MPa to14.5 MPa, 17.62 MPa
The log based Young’s modulus and poison’s to 97.78 MPa and 0.68-1.68 MPa respectively. Then
ratio range from 36 GPa to 45 GPa and 0.2 to 0.30 analyses of 1-D mechanical earth model were carried out
respectively. Log based elastic parameters were calibrated and results have been divided into five main folds.
with static values that are ranging from 15 GPa to 31 GPa
and 0.22 to 0.28 respectively. The Brittleness Index (BI) Part A
was estimated based on calibrated elastic parameters and The direction and location of three possible
ranges from 0.2 to 0.78 and brittle (BI>0.4) and ductile wellbore breakouts were identified. The locations were
(BI<0.4) sections were identified based on BI for identified on the bases of safe mud weight, circumferential
optimization of hydraulic fracture treatment. There was stresses and compressive strength. The location is given
positive correlation found between Young’s modulus and below:
BI while correlation between BI and Poison’s ratio The first location of possible breakout is from
exhibited decreasing trend. The correlations indicated that 8414ft -8428ft. while second location of possible breakout
for brittle rock the Young’s modulus should be greater is from 8452 ft to 8458ft.
than 25GPa while Poison’s ratio should be less than 0.25
Table-1. Showing first possible location of breakout.

Depth
(ft)
Mud weight
(Pw) (Psi)
  (psi) UCS (Psi)
Cohesion
(Co) (Psi)
8414 1153.985 11499.47911 14179.38769 2106.919916
8415 1574.904 10285.15888 8763.532878 1817.075998
8418 1993.955 11253.13161 6818.027235 1680.347577
Table-2. Showing second location of possible breakout.
Depth
Mud weight
(Pw) (Psi)
  (psi) UCS (Psi)
Cohesion (Co)
(Psi)
8458 2788.938 8411.676913 5903.764905 1520.605526
8451 2991.318 7808.425671 5466.416534 1435.617998
Part B at fracture location. The first location has been observed

The three possible locations for fracture are given from 8540ft to 8547ft while second location is from 8561
below on the bases of Mud weight (based on tensile ft - 8564ft.
strength) and the circumferential stresses became negative
Table-3. Showing first location for possible fracture generation during drilling.
Mud weight (Pw)
Tensile Tangential stresses
Depth (ft) (Psi) Tangential
strength (psi) (Psi)
stresses (Psi)
8547 319.4306 4497.071 -2.20297
8546 356.0867 5264.898 -2.45577
8544 357.1951 4798.135 -2.46341
Table-4. Showing second location for possible fracture generation during drilling.
Mud weight (Pw)
Tensile Tangential stresses
Depth (Ft) (Psi) Tangential
strength (psi) (Psi)
stresses (Psi)
8563 324.1839 4904.689 -2.23575
8562 365.8051 5026.149 -2.52279
8564 383.8432 4634.665 -2.64719
5224
Part C propagation during stimulation and wellbore collapse

Based on failure parameters the strongest during drilling.
locations has been identified from 8562 ft to 8565 ftthat
may have minimum wellbore instability problems due to Table-7. Showing first highest stress
high compressive strength, friction angle and cohesion and concentration locations.
can be potential target for stimulation due to high
Brittleness Index (BI) in this zones i.e. 0.6-0.69.Table 5: Depth (ft) Tangential stresses (Psi)
Showing first strongest location for minimum instability 8591 10513.62
problems and potential targets for stimulation.
8592 7754.54
Table-5. Showing first strongest location for for minimum 8595 7653.47
instability problems and potential targets for stimulation.
Cohesion Friction Table-8. Showing second highest stress
Depth (ft) UCS (Psi) concentration locations.
(Co) (Psi) angle (θ)
8563 1817.076 48.31982 8763.533 Depth (ft) Tangential stresses (Psi)
8564 1631.094 42.81543 7045.088 8426 11253.13
8425 10884.7
Table-6. Showing second strongest location for minimum
instability problems and potential targets for stimulation.
Part E
Cohesion Friction The most stable direction for wellbore is vertical
Depth (ft) UCS (Psi)
(Co) (Psi) angle (θ) because the stress regime is normal i.e.  v   H   h .
8425 1695.727 44.72834 8047.867
The most stable direction for wellbore is along (  v )
8426 1637.55 43.0065 7801.021
because the difference between  H and  h is low. So
Part D there will be less concentration of stresses (tangential
The highest stress concentration zones have been stresses) at borehole. In case of borehole in  v we will
identified from 8591ft-8595ft and 8425ft -8426ft for
have less instability problems. The pore pressure remained
positive stresses that can stop fracture initiation and
normal and ranges from 1000-4000Psi.
5225
Figure-3. Brittleness Index based on elastic parameters using Rickman approach.

The yellow layers indicating brittle layers with high BI.
5226
Figure-4. Young's modulus (E) and Poisson's ratio (V) based on logs (Blue) and core (Black)
and then calibrated values (Red).
5227
Figure-5. Variation of failure parameters (UCS, tensile strength, angle of friction with depth.
5228
Figure-6. Variation of pore pressure and stresses with depth.
5229
Figure-7. Variation of mud weight window. The yellow layers showing the critical
zones where safe mud weight layers overlapping each other.
 The Young’s modulus were greater than 25 GPa and

Poison’s ratio less than 0.25 at brittle layers in
Roseaneath shale that can be potential targets for
hydraulic fracture stimulation.
 The normal stress regime exists at the study area with
maximum stress gradient of 0.57 psi/ft and minimum
stress gradient of 0.38 psi/ft.
 The location of three possible wellbore breakouts
were identified on the bases of mud weight, tangential
stresses and failure parameters like compressive
strength and cohesion where these parameters are low
and special care need to be consider at these identified
Figure-8. Positive correlation between Young's modulus intervals.
(E) and Brittleness Index (BI).  On the bases of mud weight, tensile strength and
tangential stresses the possible location for fracture
CONCLUSIONS has been identified where lower tensile strength
 All Roseneath shale interval is comprises of alternate generate and propagate hydraulic fractures during
brittle and ductile layers as reflected by Brittleness stimulation.
analyses.  The strongest depth on the bases of failure parameters
like cohesion, internal friction angle and UCS has
5230
been identified that where there is less chances of are not clones of the Barnett Shale. SPE Annu. Tech.
sand production, wellbore instability and los Conf. Expo., no. Wang. pp. 1-11.
circulation and these strongest point were also
considered potential target for stimulation having BI [6] D. Jacobi, M. Gladkikh, B. Lecompte, G. Hursan, F.
ranges from 0.6 to 0.69. Mendez, J. Longo, S. Ong, M. Bratovich, G. Patton,
 The highest stress concentration depths has been
B. Hughes, and P. Shoemaker. 2008. Integrated
identified where special care need to be consider in
order to avoid wellbore collapse. While mud weight Petrophysical Evaluation of Shale Gas Reservoirs.
should be increase at negative stresses in order to CIPC/SPE Gas Technol. Simp. 2008 Jt. Conf. pp. 1-
shear failure/breakout. 23.
 Based on stresses the stable wellbore direction is
vertical because stress regime is normal where stress [7] M. Parker, D. Buller, E. Petre, and D. Dreher. 2009.
concentration will be less and have minimum drilling SPE 122937: Haynesville Shale-Petrophysical
stability problems and least tangential stresses has Evaluation. 2009 SPE Rocky Mt. Pet. Technol. Conf.
been observed. no. April, pp. 14–16.
 Based on normal stresses regime, fractures during
stimulation most likely to be vertical and [8] A. Alzahabi and G. AlQahtani. 2015. Fracturability
perpendicular to minimum horizontal stresses.
 Based on safe mud weight window the critical zones Index is a Mineralogical Index: A New Approach for
have been identified where the upper and lower limits Fracturing Decision. SPE Saudi Arab. pp. 1-32.
of safe mud weight are overlapping with high risk of
wellbore breakout or shear failure. [9] G. Jian-chun L. Bo and L. Cong. New Model to
Evaluate the Brittleness of Shale Reservoir in Western
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Sichuan Basin. pp. 16921-16929.
I would highly thankful to DSD, Energy
resources Australia who gave me well logs and samples [10] P. M. Collins. 2002. SPE/Petroleum Society of
results. Secondly, I am thankful to my supervisor for his CIM/CHOA 78975 Geomechanics and wellbore
kind guidance and I never forget my senior Ayyaz Mustafa stability design of an offshore horizontal well, North
who gave me guidance in developing model.
Sea.
REFERENCES
[11] Husseini M. I. 1989. Tectonic and depositional model
[1] G. Bazunu, S. S. Rahman, F. D. Zhou, N. South, and of Late Precambrian - Cambrian Arabian and
L. Wang. 2015. Geomechanical Characterization of adjoining plates. American Association of Petroleum
Shale Gas Reservoir Rocks for Planning and Design Geologists Bulletin, 73(September): 1117-1131.
of Stimulation Treatment: A Cooper Basin Case
[12] Fjaer E., R.M. Holt, A. Raeen, R. Risnes and P.
Study.
Horsud. 2008. Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics.
[2] M. Ahmad. 2014. Petrophysical and Mineralogical (A Elsevier: 1-491.
Cooper Basin Case Study) Table of Contents. no.
[13] Mouchet J.P. and A. Mitchell. 1989. Abnormal
January.
Pressures While Drilling: Origins, Prediction,
[3] K. Adisornsupawat, C. P. Tan, L. Anis, A. Vantala, R. Detection, Evaluation. Fundamental of Exploration
Juman and B. Boyce. 2011. SPE 142813 Enhanced and Production, Editions Technip: 1-255.
Geomechanical Modeling with Advanced Sonic
Processing to Delineate and Evaluate Tight Gas
Reservoirs. pp. 1-9.
[4] M. Josh, L. Esteban, C. D. Piane, J. Sarout, D. N.

Dewhurst and M. B. Clennell. 2012. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering Laboratory
characterisation of shale properties. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.
88-89: 107-124.
[5] R. Rickman, M. Mullen, E. Petre, B. Grieser and D.

Kundert. 2008. A practical use of shale petrophysics
for stimulation design optimization: All shale plays
5231
View publication stats

Geomechanicalcharaterizationof Roseneath Shalegas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Geomechanicalcharaterizationof Roseneath Shalegas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Geomechanical characterization of potential Roseneath Shale Gas, Cooper

Article in ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences · September 2017

Omer Iqbal Maqsood Ahmad

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Askury Abd Kadir

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

GEOMECHANICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF POTENTIAL ROSENEATH

Keywords: shale gas, brittleness, 1-D MEM.

INTRODUCTION However, very limited work has been done on

must be integrated [5]. The total organic matter,

Figure-2. Workflow of 1-D mechanical earth model.

There are two methods to measure geomechanical

E  Emin Where; P = Pore pressure, σv= Overburden, ΔTn

density, and g is the gravitational acceleration. Then

Table-1. Showing first possible location of breakout.

Table-2. Showing second location of possible breakout.

Part B at fracture location. The first location has been observed

Part C propagation during stimulation and wellbore collapse

Figure-3. Brittleness Index based on elastic parameters using Rickman approach.

Figure-6. Variation of pore pressure and stresses with depth.

 The Young’s modulus were greater than 25 GPa and

[4] M. Josh, L. Esteban, C. D. Piane, J. Sarout, D. N.

[5] R. Rickman, M. Mullen, E. Petre, B. Grieser and D.

View publication stats

You might also like