Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Spe 2163 Pa
Spe 2163 Pa
Introduction
The subject of many discussions and technical papers the fracture extension pressure gradient in areas of
in the last 20 years has been the prediction of the well- incipient normal faulting. 1 Overburden stress gradi-
bore pressure gradients that are required to induce ent, formation pore pressure gradient and Poisson's
or extend fractures in subsurface formations. The sub- ratio of rocks were the independent variables that
ject merits this attention because of the frequently were shown to control fracture pressure gradient, the
recurring problems that arise from an inability to dependent variable.
predict fracture pressure gradients. In 1967, Matthews and Kelly published another
Encountered in several common types of opera- fracture pressure gradient equation that is different
tions in the oil industry are problems associated with from that of Hubbert and Willis in that a variable
the prediction of formation fracture pressure gradi- "matrix stress coefficient" concept was utilized. 3 Later
ents. When wells are being drilled in both new and the same year, Costley wrote about a similar idea. 5
old fields, lost circulation is often a very troublesome Goldsmith and Wilson used a least-squares curve-
and expensive problem. Complete loss of circulation fitting technique and field data from the Gulf Coast
has been disastrous in some cases. Many times, such area to correlate fracture pressure gradient with for-
disasters could have been avoided if techniques for mation pore pressure gradient and formation depth. 4
calculating fracture pressure gradient had been em- They noted that the fracture pressure gradient in-
ployed in the well plans, and if casing strings had been creased with increasing depth while the pore pressure
set, and mud weight plans had been followed accord- gradient remained constant.
ingly. In areas of abnormally pressured formations, In each of these cases, the problem for which a so-
the prediction of fracture gradients during the well- lution was sought was to determine the bottom-hole
planning stage is extremely important. In fact, it is as pressure gradient required to initiate or extend a frac-
important as the prediction of formation pressure ture. Results of the previous work show that fracture
gradients, which has received a great deal of attention pressure gradient is a function primarily of overbur-
in recent years. den stress gradient, pore pressure gradient, and the
There are several published methods used to deter- ratio of horizontal to vertical stress. There is argu-
mine fracture pressure gradients. However, none of ment for a fourth variable in that in many cases break-
these methods appears to be general enough to be down fracture pressure gradient is greater than the
used with much reliability in all areas. In 1957, Hub- fracture extension pressure gradient. However, if the
bert and Willis published a classical paper that in- fracturing fluid is able to penetrate the formation
cluded the development of an equation used to predict through the pores or existing cracks, there is very little
In arriving at a new method of predicting formation fracture gradients, it was found that
overburden load, Poisson's ratio for rocks, and pressure gradients vary with depth.
Although the method was developed specifically for the Gulf Coast, it should be highly
reliable for all areas, provided that the variables reflect the conditions in the specific
area being considered.
'\0 - 10.0
'" '"
c:
12.0 ~
J;;
which is known as the Hubbert and WiIlis equation. 0.7 '0
....... ....z
Under these conditions, the fracture gradient is cal- o0 14.0 'cc":
culated to be a constant with increasing depth for all
normally pressured formations. This is known to be 0.8
0"'0 ~
:E
'"
(5
:<
....
0~ 0
l"--.... 16.0 ii
untrue for many cases in the Gulf Coast. Actually,
~
Eq. 2 predicts values that are usually too low com- 0.9 """- .0 -
r-
pared with values from field data. However, this does 18.0
not mean that Eq. 1 is invalid. It is more probable
that the assumptions used to obtain Eq. 2 are in error. 1.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Eq. 2 was used for comparative purposes to calculate NORMAL Rtsh)/OBSERVEO R(shl
Curve 2 of Fig. 2, using the pressure gradient curve Fig. lB-Relationship between shale resistivity parameter
data_ (<:::l,lJ:'v.~_ C()(Fj£,_n.flS .detepnin~dfrom the log Rn('h)/R.b\o.h) and reservoir fluid pressure gradient.·
13_~4 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
havior, until the abnormal pressure section is trav- load is 1.0 psi/ft. To calculate a fracture gradient by
ersed. Then Pw/D may decrease as shown by the this method one must use the following procedure.
other curves in Figs. 2 and 5. 1. Obtain the formation pore pressure.
Matthews and Kelly3 presented a fracture gradient 2. Determine the effective stress, (J' = 1.0 D - p.
equation similar to Eq. 1. However, they introduced 3. Determine the depth D i for which the matrix
the concept of a variable horizontal-to-vertical stress stress (J' would be the normal value:
ratio. Fig. 3 is a reproduction of their curves showing
the variable stress ratio as a function of depth for two
areas. Again one must assume that the overburden
4. Use the value of D i from the preceding step with
o Fig. 3 to determine K i •
II CURVE I. FORMATION PRESSURE 5. With the resulting data, calculate the fracture
2
I f~ \ GRADIENT
2. HUBBERT Af'olP WILLIS
gradient using the Matthews and Kelly fracture gra-
~ \ FRACTURE GRADIENT
WITH. =0.25
dient equation, which follows:
,\ 3. SAME AS 2. EXCEPT
~=K{;)+~ .
4 • = 0.32
(3)
l~ 4. MATTHEWS AND KELLY
8
. \ VARIABLE • gradient and say that it is higher than the fracture
extension gradient.)
t 1;-..... 2 1/3 \/4 6. Plot the fracture gradient as a function of depth.
o
o
o
.. 10 ~ ............... .
\r.5
\ In this manner, Curve 4 of Fig. 2 and Curve 3 of
Fig. 5 were generated. The effect of depth and forma-
t
'"
o ~ f\~\rs tion pressure is readily evident. However, there ap-
12
i 1\, pear to be two weaknesses in the approach, one of
.\ which is the assumption that the overburden stress is
14 Il" equal to 1.0 psi/ft of depth. The other weakness is
that the stress ratio used in calculating the fracture
/ 1/ , I
J gradient in abnormally pressured formations is that
,,,,
I
16
I
of the deepest normally pressured formation. The
I Matthews and Kelly approach represents a significant
8
I
I
I
I', advancement in fracture gradient technology, and the
! I
, I
I variable stress ratio concept is quite valid when com-
I
11
MUD WE\~HT
13 I 17 I
pared with field data analysis.
~i
20
o .2 .4 .6 1.0 .8 1.2 1.4
Recently, Goldsmith and Wilson 4 found that the
PRESSURE GRADI ENT - psllll presently existing techniques for calculating fracture
Fig. 2-Formation and fracture pressure gradients. gradients were inadequate. Using a great deal of data
on lost circulation and squeeze pressure, they devel-
oped empirical equations, using least-squares curve-
2 fitting, that appear to predict very well the fracture
~
gradients for a localized area. The equations are long
4
"~ ~ SOUTH TEXAS GULF COAST
and somewhat difficult to use, but this technique was
employed in calculating Curve 5 of Fig. 2. The vast
disagreement of these techniques is well illustrated.
''""
Costley5 recently published yet another technique
I'" ~
that is similar to the Matthews and Kelly method. The
same basic assumptions are involved; therefore, the
method will not be discussed further. Nevertheless,
8
o
o
Q
\ \
\
the data published by Costley were used with other
data to develop the method that follows.
\ \
I
:I:
l-
lL A Revised Approach
~ 12
1\ '~
LOUISIANA GULF COAST
Throughout the remainder of this work, it is postu-
lated that the assumotions leading to Eq. 1 are valid
,
of depth. The problem is to determine the relationship
\, \
\6
of overburden stress, pore pressure, and Poisson's
ratio with depth. Since it is accepted here that abnor-
mal formation pressure gradients may be determined
from logs, that aspect of the problem is solved. The
20
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 next steps are to assume that· the overburden stress
MATRIX STRESS COEFFICIENT- Kj
gradient is 1.0 psi/ft, then to solve Eq. 1 for the stress
Fig. 3-Matrix stress coefficient: ratio group
OCTOBER, 1969
available. These logs were used to plot bulk density
vs depth, which is shown in Fig. 6. The values for
(4) bulk density were read at the mid-point of each 1,000-
ft interval and averaged step by step downward to
20,000 ft of depth. In this manner, the overburden
and to evaluate Eg. 4 with field data. stress curve of Fig. 7 was produced. The value of
A great deal of data from the analysis of hydraulic overburden stress read from the curve at any depth
fracturing treatments in West Texas was published by represents the real average overburden gradient at
Crittendon. 6 These data were used to develop the left that specific depth. Further averaging need not be
curve of Fig. 4. It can be seen that for the producing done.
formations of the West Texas area, the assumptions The same procedure was used for similar data from
SjD = 1.0 and v = 0.25 are valid. wells in the Santa Barbara Channel. Bulk densities
Data given by Costley were used to back-calculate from logs and the resulting overburden stress gradient
the middle Poisson ratio curve of Fig. 4. Note the curve are shown in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively, with
curvature of the trend of Poisson ratio vs depth for the results being similar to those given in Figs. 6 and
the Gulf Coast area. This is caused by the sediments' 7. It was concluded that variable overburden stress
o
, GULFCOAs~.1
VARIABLE
2 I\. \. OVERBURDEN
o
4
'\\ 2
-LEGEND-
I. PRESSURE GRADIENT
FROM LOG
\
OVERBURDEN
6
EQUALS 1.0psi/lt
SHALES
11\ 2. FRACTURE GRADIENT
a
HUBBERT WILLIS
v -0.25
\\ 4
3. F'RACTURE GRADIENT
1\' .~-
I-
i-
;j
a:
w
6
\ a
MATTHEWS KELLY
4. FRACTURE GRADIENT
PRESENT METHOD
10
WEST TEXAS \ w
::E
w oo 8
i\
"-""," \
OVERBURDEN a:
e- EQUALS 1.0 psi 1ft
l- 9
12 ~- I
PR6D~_ J:
I-
FORMATIONS ::;10
'""" ~ ~
c
14
12
/ ~ !}I
16
14
I. 2. 3.4.
18
16
I
20
o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 o 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.B 1.0 1.2 1.4
POISSON'S RATIO - v GRADIENT- psi/fl
Fig. 4-Variation of Poisson's ratio with depth. Fig. 5-Well B, East Cameron.
Fracture pressure gradient comparjson.
o o
"~
"-
'"~" \
"~ ""
4 0"
\~
4 \
6
\ l\.,,- 6 ~
I\~
UPPER LIMIT
8 \ \~
OFALLD~A POINTS
8
\
;;;
o
Q
~IO
ll.
....
o
12
--
LOWER LIMIT \
OF ALL DATA POINTS \ ~\\
~\\\\
\ 1\
\
\
\ \ .\
14
\
\
~ \ 14
\
\ \\ \
,
16 16
18
1\ \ \
18
\
20
1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3
\\\
2.4 2.5 2.6
20
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05
8ULK DENSITY-GM/CC OVERBURDEN STRESS GRADIENT (psi/If)
Fig. 6--Composite bulk density curve from density log Fig. 7-Composite overburden stress gradient for all
data for the Gulf Coast. normally compacted Gulf Coast formations.
~
~
LJ
/' \ ~
lL
....
Ilt.,
0
<;
\
\ 7 \
\
14
\ SUPER
t::> PRESSURff
16 I~ 8
10
2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7
BULK DENSITY - GM/CC
o
, 1\
o
1 2
\
\,
§ 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
2
4
FRACT:L ~ ~\t\ 3
\ \, \ \
PRESSURE
4
\
\
6
....... \ \\ \ t
5
\
o 8
i\\~1\ "
.....
\
8 o
, ~ 8
-;- 6
~
Ii:.... r--....
10
\
~
/--...... ~
o
12
FORMATION ___
PRESSURE N \ \\ \
lL
....
o
7
14
\ \
\
\
I
8
~
,
l\.- " \
9
6
Fig. 9-Fracture gradient with variable overburden and Fig. ll-Overburden stress gradient,
Poisson's ratio included, Well C, East Cameron. Santa Barbara Channel.
Other Applications
A knowledge of fracture gradient prediction methods
is extremely useful in such everyday operations as ....
.~
.5
- -- - v- V- i
I
I
I
I
I
'-D 1.00
0.95
SiD P/
D
1.0 0.' 0.90
0.8
;: O.8~
...
.....
...
iii ~~ II)
~
II)
.
0: II)
...
-
:::> OJ
...
0:
0.8 o· ~O 0 0.75 ."
0:
\ '"'"
-------
OJ
.~
> z o· U>
0 0 II)
't-. c;
0.8 ~~ 0.8
0 ... 0
oJ>
1> 0.70 '"'"
-----
0: ~
Q. '!>~
...0 '0 ."
U>
"-
...
0.4 0.&5
,..
0.60
0.45
0.40