Module F:

Drilling in Unusual Stress Regimes

Part I – Overpressured Cases

Argentina SPE 2005 Course on

Earth Stresses and Drilling Rock Mechanics

Maurice B. Dusseault
University of Waterloo and Geomec a.s
Drilling in Overpressured Zones
 For practical purposes ($), reducing the
number of casings or liners is desirable
 However, drilling in OP zones carries
simultaneous risks of blowouts and lost
circulation that are difficult to manage.
 There now exist new options that help us:
 Drilling slightly above hmin with LCM in the mud
 Bicentre bits and expandable casings
 Understanding overpressure and also the
deep zone of stress reversion will help
 Fresh water: ~10 MPa/km
Pressures at Depth 8.33 ppg
0.43 psi/frt
~10 MPa pressure (MPa) Sat. NaCl brine: ~12 MPa/km
10 ppg
0.516 psi/ft

Hydrostatic pressure distribution: p(z) = wgz

1 km
Underpressured case:
underpressure ratio = p/(wgz),
a value less than 0.95
Overpressured case:
overpressure ratio = p/(wgz),
underpressure a value greater than 1.2
overpressure

Normally pressured range:

0.95 < p(norm) < 1.2
depth
Some Definitions
 For consistency, some definitions:
 Hydrostatic: po = “weight” column of water
above the point,  = 8.33 ppg to 10 ppg in
exceptional cases of saturated NaCl brine
 Underpressure is defined as po less than
95% of the hydrostatic po, usually found
only at relatively shallow depths (<2 km) or
in regions of very high relief (canyons…)
 Mild overpressure: po of 10 ppg to 60% v
 Medium overpressure: po of 60 to 80% v
 Strong overpressure: po > 80% of v
 Abnormal Pressure, Gradient Plot
1.0 2.0
0  Typically, po is close to
hydrostatic in the upper

16.7 ppg
1 region
po
hmin
 hmin is close to v in
2 v shallow muds, soft
thick shale shale, but lower in stiff
sequence
3 competent deeper shale
 A sharp transition zone
po
4 is common (200-600 m)
Target A  The OP zone may be 2-3
5
Target B
km thick
 A stress reversion zone
6 Target C may exist below OP
depth - kilometres
GoM –The Classic OP Regime
Other Well-Known Strong OP Areas
 Iran, Tarim Basin (China), North Sea,
Offshore Eastern Canada, Caspian
 In many thick basins, OP is found only at
depth, without a sharp transition zone
 Most common in young basins that filled
rapidly with thick shale sequences
 Goodductile shale seals, undercompaction
 Watch out for OP related to salt tectonics!
 These are most common offshore:
 Landbasins have often undergone uplift
 Tectonics have allowed pressures to dissipate
 Eastern Canada Overpressured Areas

Nova Scotia Gas Belt

Importance of Geomechanics
Exports
Porosity vs Depth & Overpressure
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0
porosity
sands & mud
sandstones

clay Anomalously high

clay & shale,
“normal” line , low vP, vS, and
mud- other properties
stone may indicate OP
In some cases, 28%
 at depths of 6 km!
shale

effect of OP
on porosity
4-8 km +T
depth slate (deep)
 Permeability and Depth
Permeability – k – Darcies
 Muds and shales have 0 1 2 3 4 5
low k, < 0.001 D, and as
Muds and
low as 10-10 D Shales Sands and Sandstones
 Exception: in zones of 5

deep fractured shale,

Depth – z – 1000’s ft
k can approach 0.1-1 D
 Sands decrease in k
with z
 Exception, high 
sands in OP zones can
have high k
 Anhydrite, salt k = 0!
Intact muds and shales
10 have negligible k
15
High porosity OP sands
have anomalously high
porosity & permeability
20
Fractured shales at depth may
25
have high fracture permeability

 Carbonates, it depends
Abnormal po Causes
 Delayed compaction of thick shale zones
 Water is under high pressure
 Leak off to sands is very slow (low k)
 Thermal effects (H2O expansion)
 Nearby topographic highs (artesian effect)
 Hydrocarbon generation (shales expel HCs,
they accumulate in traps at higher po)
 Gypsum dewatering ( anhydrite + H2O)
 Clay mineral changes (Smectite  Illite +
H2O + SiO2)
 Isolated sand diagenesis (, no drainage)
 Mechanisms for OP Generation

Compaction =
H2O expelled to sand
Mud, clays 0-2000 m
bodies, especially
from swelling clays H2H020 Sand H20

Shale 2000-4000 m
Montmorillonite = much H2O
Sandstone

Diagenesis 4000-6000 m

Illite
+ Free H2O Compaction and
Kaolinite
Chlorite + SiO2 Clay Diagenesis
 Mechanisms for OP Generation
 Artesian effect (high elevation recharge)
 Thrust tectonics (small effect) rain

 Deep thermal expansion

clays and silts

Artesian charging
3-10 km Artesian charging is
usually shallow only Thrusting can lead
to some OP

+T = +V of H2O: thermal

20-100 km expansion at depth
 Offshore: Trapping of OP
Listric faults on continental margins lead to
isolated fault blocks, good seals, high OP in the
isolated sand bodies from shale compaction

“down-to-the-sea” or “listric” faults

sea
stress

shale v
slip planes shale h
po

Sand bodies that have no

drainage because of fault seals, depth
OP is trapped indefinitely
Stress reversion zone
HC Generation and OP
HCs generated
in organic shales
v T, p, 
shale increase
kerogen Semi-solid
organics, kerogen,
po < h < v

micro- v
fissure high T, p,  po = h < v,
Fractures develop
and grow

sands Pressured fluids are

fluid oil and gas expelled through the
flow
fracture network, po
“stored” in OP sands
generation of hydrocarbon fluids
OP From Gas Cap Development
Thick gas cap development,
A
pressures along A-A perhaps charged from below,
can generate high OP
stress

gas cap,
gas cap low density
effect

oil, density
= 0.75-0.85 A
Gas migration along
fractured zones,
faults, etc.
po h Fractured rock
Deep gas source around fault
depth

Gas rises: gravitational segregation

Abnormal Pressure – Sand-Shales
 Overpressure is often generated due to
shale compaction and clay diagenesis
 Montmorillonite (smectite) changes to
lllite/Chlorite at depth. H20 is generated
and is a source of OP.
 Pressure is generated in shales, sands
accumulate pressure
 PF commonly higher in shales than sands
 Sand-shale osmotic effects (salinity
differences) can also contribute to OP
 PF in GoM Sand-Shale Sequences

Absolute stress values Stress gradient plot

stress
hmin v
PF in sand line hmin v z z

shale

sandstone

shale

sandstone

limestone

shale
depth depth
Pore pressure distribution, top of OP zone
Some Additional Comments
 Casing shoes are set in shales (98%)
 The LOT value reflects the higherhmin in
the shales, therefore a higher PF
 As we drill deeper, through sands, the
actual hmin value is less! By as much as 1
ppg in some regions
 Can be unsafe, particularly when we
increase MW rapidly at the top of the OP
zone
 You should test this using FIT while drilling
Examination of a “Typical”
Synthetic OP Case
 Particularly Difficult OP Case
1.0 (8.33 ppg) 2.0 (16.7 ppg)
0  Deep water drilling,
Sea water depth 800 m
mud heavier than H2O
1
800 m soft sediments  Thick soft sediments
2000 m medium stiff
section, PF ~ h ~ v
2 shales and silts  Thin, shallow, gas-
charged sand
3 po h v
 Zone where h is
seal
roughly unchanged
sharp
transition
4
1400 m OP zone
 Sharp transition zone
 High OP, 90% of v
5

Reversion
 Deep zone of stress
6
zone and pressure reversion
Z – kilometers (3279 ft/km)
 Upper Part of Hole
1.0 (8.33 ppg) 2.0 (16.7 ppg)
0  The vertical lines are
several MW choices
9.16 ppg
10.0 ppg

Sea water - 800 m

 Riser and first csg. MW
 9.16 ppg does not
1 control gas, but only
800 m soft sediments fractures above 950 m
 10.0 ppg controls gas,
but losses above 1200 m
will be a problem. It
2
does allow deeper drlg.
 Solution, riser seat at
Medium stiff ~1000 m
shales and silts
 Casing shoe at ~1400 m
Z – kilometers (3279 ft/km)
Riser Issues in this Example
 Sea water is ~ 1.03 ~8.6 ppg
 At great depth, MW may be as high as 2.02
(17 ppg) if the riser is exposed fully
 The pressure at the riser bottom is very
large: 800m  9.81  (2.02 – 1.03) = 7.8 MPa
 The riser must be designed to take this
 Or, special sea-floor level equipment must
be installed
 Special mud lift systems from the sea
floor, etc.
 Approaching the Transition Zone
1.0 (8.33 ppg) 2.0 (16.7 ppg)
0  LOT of 1.3, 10.83 ppg
Sea water - 800 m  This limits us to 3.6 km
for the next casing
1
800 m soft sediments
 However, this will
require a liner to go
2000 m shales through transition zone
2 and silts
 Liner from 3600 m to
3750 – 3800 m
po h v  If it is possible to drill
3
100 m deeper initially,
sharp
to 3700 m, we may save
transition the liner ($1,000,000)
4 OP zone

Z – kilometers (3279 ft/km)

 Solution A: Casing or Liners
1.0 (8.33 ppg) 2.0 (16.7 ppg)
0  This is the most
Sea water conservative, safest,
and the most costly
1  Black line is MWmax
 If shale problems
2000 m shales occur in the 1.6-3.6 km
and silts
2
shale zone, requiring
an extra casing… (i.e.,
po h v little margin for error)
3

4 OP zone

Z – kilometers (3279 ft/km)

 Sol’n B: Drill OB With LCM?
1.0 (8.33 ppg) 2.0 (16.7 ppg)
0  Dashed line is from
Sea water the previous slide
 Drilling with the purple
1
line, saves a liner!
 This is ~1.2 ppg OB at
2000 m shales the shoe (quite a bit!)
2 and silts
 Place upper casings
deeper if possible
 Drill with LCM in mud
po h v
3
(see analysis approach
in Additional Materials)
 Place a denser pill at
final casing trip
4 OP zone  (Approach with caution)

Z – kilometers (3279 ft/km)

 Solution C: Deeper Upper Casings
1.0 (8.33 ppg) 2.0 (16.7 ppg)
0  300 m subsea primary
Sea water casing depth
 Casing at 1850 m depth
1
 Drill long shale section
with MW shown as
dashed black line
2
 Increase MW only in
Slight OB last 100 m (LCM to plug
needed
ballooning at the shoe)
3  Slight OB of 0.2-0.3
h v ppg needed
po  Casing may be saved (?)
4 OP zone

Z – kilometers (3279 ft/km)

Deeper Upper Casing Shoes
 Depending on the profile of OP stresses
and pressures, this approach can be
effective, but in some cases it is not
 Of course, the best approach is always to
place the shoes as deeply as possible
 This may give us a one-string advantage
deeper in the well if problems encountered
 At shallow depths (mudline to ~4000 ft),
use published correlations with caution
because there are few good LOT data
Comments on the Approaches
 There is risk associated with saving a
casing string: risks must be well-managed …
 The stress/pressure distribution sketched
is a particularly difficult case:
 Shallow pressured gas seam at 1500 m subsea
 PF (h) is quite low around 3000 m subsea
 Transition zone is very sharp (~250 m)
 OP is high (88-90% of v)
 However, it could even be worse!
 More gas zones, depleted reservoirs at 3.6 km
 Etc…
Drilling Through a Reversion Zone
 Below OP, usually a zone where po, h (PF)
gradually revert to “normal” values. This is
rarely a sharp transition as at top of OP
 This is related to fractured shales that
“bleed off” OP (i.e. lower OP seal is gone)
 Also, when shales change and shrink, the h
value (PF) drops as well
 “Reverse” internal blowout possibility
 Blowout higher in hole
 Fracturing lower in hole
Stress Reversion at Depth
stress (or pressure)
vertical stress, v
horizontal stress, h
pore pressure, po

Note that hmin can become > v

4 km
depth Region of strong
overpressure

Higher k rocks Stresses “revert” to

Z (fractured shales) more ordinary state
 Same Example…
1.0 (8.33 ppg) 2.0 (16.7 ppg)
 OP casing was set at
3800 m depth
4
1400 m OP zone  Drill with 16.7 ppg MW
 At 5.5 km, large losses
 If we reduce MW,
high po at 4.6 km can
5 blow out, flow to
bottom hole at 5.5 km
Reversion
zone (reverse internal BO)
 Set casing at 5450 m
 Drill ahead with
6 po h v reduced MW
Z – kilometers (3279 ft/km)
 Real Deep Overpressure Drilling
 Watch out for shallow
gas sands
 Dark black line: MWmax
for the interval
 Dashed black line is
the actual drilling MW
 Red stars: excessive
shale caving, blowouts
 Green stars: ballooning
and losses
 Surface casing string
not drawn on figure

This is a deep North Sea case, west of Shetlands

Detecting OP Before Drilling
 Seismic stratigraphy and velocity analysis
 Anomalously low velocities, high attenuations
 Can often detect shallow gas-charged sands
(unless they are really thin, < 3-5 m)
 Geological expectations (right conditions,
right type of basin and geological history…)
 Offset well data, good “earth” model, so
that lateral data extension is reliable
Detecting OP While Drilling
 Changes in the “Dr” exponent, penetration
rate may increase rapidly in OP zone
 Changes in seismic velocity (tP increases)
 Changes in porosity of the cuttings
(surface measurements or from MWD)
 Changes in the resistivity of shales from
the basin “trend lines”
 Changes in the SP log
 Changes in drill chip and cavings shapes,
also volumes if MW < po
 Mud system parameters, etc
Comments on LWD
 Methods of data transmission…
 Mud pulse – 2 bits/s @ 30,000’, 12-25 b/s
is good at any depth
 Issues in data transmission:
 Long wells, extended reach
 OBM, electrical noise, drilling noise
 ID changes in the drill string
 Pump harmonics, stick/slip sources
 “Wire” pipe – extremely expensive
 High rate on out-trip, then download on rig
 New technologies will likely emerge soon…
Reasons for Pore Press. Prediction

Drilling Problems Due to Pressure Imbalance:

 Overbalance: Slow drilling, Differential

Sticking, Lost circulation, Masked shows,
Formation damage.

 Underbalance: Imprudently fast drilling,

Pack- offs, Sloughing shales, Kicks,
Blowouts.
Pore Pressure Prediction Basics I
 Data from offset wells
 Logs, Dr data, sonics, neutron porosity,
resistivity, etc.
 Transfer data to new well stratigraphy, z
 Plot v gradient, sonic transit time, Dr,
resistivity, porosity, etc. with depth
 Use trend analyses and published methods,
to determine the “normal compaction line”
 Use an Eaton correlation chart if you have
it for this area (use offset and other data)
 This is the prognosis profile for new well
Pore Pressure Prediction Basics II
 With seismic data and geological model of
the new well region, assess:
 Existence of OB conditions (seals, sources…)
 Existence of faults, salt tectonic features…
 Plot depth corrected velocities on profile:
 Carefully compare the two:
 Lower velocities = greater OP risk…
 Explain existence of any undercompacted zones
and anomalies you have identified
 You now have as good a prognosis as you
can develop with existing data
 Sonic Transit Time Differences
1.0 (8.33 ppg) 2.0 (16.7 ppg) Log of sonic transit time
0
Sea water depth 800 m 650 s/m

1 Soft seds. Normal trend from the

basin, offset data
Seismic
Stiff shales
2 velocity
and silts
model

3 po v Sonic transit time

seal Expected OP from offset wells
transition
4 PROGNOSES FROM
Critical region
OFFSET WELL OP zone
DATA, CORRECTED
5 FOR Z, ETC…
Reversion
zone
6

Z – kilometers (3279 ft/km)

Prognoses Based on Seismics
Normal compaction line for
the basin

General seismic profile data,

depth corrected for new well

Corrected sonic transit time,

calibrated with the general
seismic velocity data

OP beginning Regions of substantial

deviation are highlighted as
“critical”, experience used to
choose likely top of OP

Large OP expected OP magnitude estimated,

based on correlations
Seismic Cross-Sections

Depth Converted

1:1 Horizontal / Vertical Ratio

Offset Well Ties (Regional)

Planned Wellbore (Local)

Full Structural Picture

Fully Annotated

Radial Animation
 North Sea Seismic Section - Diapir
Well A
1b
Gas Pull Down

Mid-Miocene regional pressure boundary

Top Balder
Top Chalk
Intra Hod/Salt

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

Other “Trend Line” Approaches
 Methods exist for using trend analysis for
many different measures, including:
 Drillingexponent data
 Resistivity trends lines (salinity of strata)
 Deviations from expected porosity (less
sensitive)
 SP log characteristics
 Perhaps some others…
 Shale data are used because sand porosity
is less “predictable” in general
Gas Cutting of the Drilling Mud
 Shale behaves plastically at elevated
pressure and temperature gradients.
 Significance (and insignificance) of gas cut
mud (GCM). Gas from CH4 in shales?
 Very large gas units: 2,000 to 4,000 units ?
 Connection gas (CG) - better indicator. Use
it for well to talk. Ineffective when too
much overbalance.
 CG increase from 20, 40, 60 to 80 points.
Yes, you are underbalanced.
Is MW a Pressure Indicator?
 No. The lower limits of MW in most OP
regimes are related to shale stability,
rather than to pore pressure
 Usually, in difficult shales, 1 to 2 ppg above
po is needed to control excessive shale
problems
 HOWEVER! MW limits from offset well
drilling logs are useful to estimate MWmin
 Of course, this can change as well:
 More inhibited WBM, using OBM instead, etc…
 Faster drilling, less exposure, etc…
MWmin Prognosis
 Offset well pressure,
stress, drilling data…
 Estimate target MWmin
for new well prognosis
 If this generates too
narrow a MW window,
assess approaches
 Will OBM allow a lower
MWmin? (on the plot,
the dashed blue line is
the estimated OBM
MW for shale stability)
 Other factors?
 MWmin, MWmax Well Prognosis
1.0 (8.33 ppg) 2.0 (16.7 ppg)
0  Use a rock mechanics
Sea water depth 800 m
borehole stability model,
1 Soft seds. calibrated, to estimate
Weak rocks MWmin from geophysical
Stiff shales
2
and silts logs and lab data
 Use offset well losses,
3 v ballooning, LOT, etc. to
po Expected OP estimate MWmin
transition
4 PROGNOSES FROM
OFFSET WELL OP zone
 This defines the local
DATA, CORRECTED “safe” MW window
FOR Z, ETC…
5
Reversion  Now, combine with casing
Strong rocks
zone program prognosis to plan
6 the MW for the well

Z – kilometers (3279 ft/km)

During Drilling…
 Remember, in OP drilling we are trying to
“push the envelope” to reduce casings
 Update the well prognosis regularly with
actual LOT, MWD, ECD data
 Monitor, measure, observe…
 Kick tolerances, ballooning behavior, gas cuts
 Chip morphology and volumes
 Flow rate gauges on flowline, pumps
 Mud temperature monitoring MWD temperature
 Sticky pipe, torque, ECD, mud pressure
fluctuations
 Cuttings analyses: vP, Brinnell hardness are used
 Increasing Depth of Casing Shoe
(2.0 = 16.7 ppg) 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
density, g/cm3
prognosis
for hmin
MW Previous
prognosis =1.92 casing
for po string
v
XLOT hmin
value

overpressure shoe
transition zone
deeper shoe for
area indicates casing string!
possible MW
depth strong overpressure zone

Using high weight trip pills and careful monitoring, the lower limit can be extended
High Weight Trip Pills
 Drill ahead beyond “limit” (if shales permit)
with MW = LOT at the shoe PF
 Some gas cutting of the mud and shale
sloughing… If too severe, casing
 For trip, set a pill of higher weight
 This creates a change in slope of the mud
pressure line in the “window” (see figure)
 Pull out carefully, no swabbing please
 Set casing (best with top drive and some
ability to pump casing down a bit)
 Unlikely to succeed with gas sands present
 An OP Well Prognosis
PORE PRESSURE (PPG)
WELL DESIGN - HI 133 No. 1 EXPECTED MW (PPG)
MW, PF, & EST. po FRAC GRAD. (SAND)
FRAC. GRAD (SHALE)
0
1000
2000
3000
DEPTH - ft

4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
MUD WEIGHT - ppg
 Same Overpressured Well, GoM
WELL DESIGN - HI 133 No. 1
MW, PF, & ESTIMATED po
0

1000

2000 PORE PRESSURE (PPG)

EXPECTED MW (PPG)
3000
FRAC GRAD. (SAND)
FRAC. GRAD (SHALE)
4000

5000
DEPTH

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
MUD WEIGHT
Approach for this Well - I
 From 8600´to 9400´po goes from 9.5 ppg to
15.7 ppg (1.14  1.89 g/cm3)!
 A liner over a 800-1200´length is necessary,
but we don’t want to install a second liner
 Strategy:
 Below the 3000´ shoe, drill as close to po as
possible, as fast as possible to avoid shale issues
 Below 8200´, weight up while drlg. to as high as
possible (upper part of hole will be overbalanced)
 This is a case where we may add carefully graded
LCM to help build a stress-cage higher in the hole
 Drill as deep as possible, hopefully to 9100´…
 Approach for this Well - II
 Strategy (cont’d)
 Push the envelope for depth, managing your ECD
carefully, living with a bit of ballooning
 To trip out and case, place a high density “pill” for
safety (e.g. 18 ppg mud for bottom 1500´)
 Set casing (partly cemented only) at 9100-9200´
 Mud up to MW slightly higher than po, drill out, do
XLOT, advance carefully, gradually increasing MW
 Set a liner as deep as possible, 9900´ if possible
 Mud up before drilling out with 16.5 ppg mud with
carefully designed LCM to “strengthen the hole”
 Do a precision XLOT, drill ahead to TD, increasing
MW only as required
Deep Water Drilling & Stability
 Narrow operating window is common
 Circulating risks, ECDs, monitoring….
 Special mud rheology: low T, riser cools the
mud massively, down to 5-10° is common
 Casing design often requires many short
casing strings, shallow muds, overpressure,
and the zone of pressure reversion
 Well control is tricky because of the
narrow window, long risers, etc…
 Rig positioning and emergency disconnect
critical for safety (no circulation for days)
 Gullfaks

North Sea case

Overpressure

Reversion zone

Depletion effect
Franklin Field, UK West Sector
 120-130 MPa po in deep Triassic zones
 T to 200-211°C measured
 6300 m deep (~20,000 feet)
 Mud weights of 18-19 ppg required
 Very narrow MW window near reservoir
 Retrograde condensate field, liquids are
generated near the well, reducing k
 Surface pres. up to 101 MPa (15000 psi)!
 Reservoir experienced rapid depletion and
this led to very high effective stresses, as
well as massively reduced lateral stresses
Lessons Learned
 OP drilling: a major challenge, particularly:
 In young offshore basins
 In deep water (riser length issues)
 Careful well prognoses are critical (PF, po…)
 Prognoses must be updated while drilling
 The envelope can be pushed!
 Livingwith breakouts for lower MW
 Using LCM to generate somewhat higher PF
 Special trip practices, special equipment…
 In OP drilling, vigilance is absolutely critical
 Increase your observations, understand them
 Additional Materials

Also, visit the following website for a

comprehensive list of formulae for
your pressure calculations in drilling:
http://www.tsapts.com.au/formulae_sheets.htm
 Fracture Pressure Enhancement in
Drilling Through Use of Limited
Entry Fracturing and Propping
Courtesy of:
Francesco Sanfilippo
Geomec a.s., Norway

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

 The Concept
To enhance fracturing pressure by drilling slightly
overbalance and, at the same time, by effectively
plugging and sealing the induced hydraulic fractures

Already plugged

Induced fracture

Not plugged

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

 How Can this be Analyzed?

1. Find a simple description of this process

1. First-order physics

2. Estimate the fracturing pressure enhancement

3. Evaluate the importance of the involved

factors and identify the first-order parameters

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

 Methodology

1. Estimate the enhancement through the

classical results (England and Green equation)

2. Modify the Perkins-Kern-Nordgren model to

take into account the effect of progressive
plugging

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

 Classical results
•England and Green’s equation can be used once the
geometrical parameters of the fracture are known.
•It
estimates the hoop stress increase from the
mechanical properties of the rock and and the geometrical
parameters of the fracture

Two shapes have been considered:

”Penny shape”-like fractures
PKN-like fractures (length>>height)

Base case for the parametric study:

Young modulus: 40 GPa
Poisson’s ratio: 0.2
Fracture width: 3 mm
Fracture height/radius: 10 m
Courtesy Geomec a.s.
 Classical results: effect of the Young modulus

18

PKN
16 Penny Shape

14
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

12

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Young modulus (GPa)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

Classical results: effect of the Poisson coefficient

PKN
7 Penny Shape

6
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Poisson coefficient

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

 Classical results: effect of the fracture width

12

PKN
Penny Shape
10
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Fracture width (mm)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

 Classical results: effect of the fracture height

40

PKN
35 Penny Shape

30
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

25

20

15

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Fracture height/radius (m)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

 Modified PKN model
•With this model the geometrical parameters of the
fracture are estimated according to the measurements
while drilling
•Plugging is considered through a reduction of the
fracture permeability with time up to complete sealing

Base case for the parametric study:

Young’s modulus: 40 GPa
Poisson’s ratio: 0.2
Mud viscosity: 5 cP
Mud loss rate: 1 bbl/min
Time required to plug the fracture at a given depth: 30 min
Rate Of Penetration: 10 m/hr

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

 Modified PKN model: fracture aperture vs. time

3.5
Fracture width at wellbore (mm)

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
time (min)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

 Modified PKN model: effect of Young modulus

30.0

25.0
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Young Modulus (GPa)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

Modified PKN model: effect of Poisson coefficient

18.0

16.0

14.0
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Poisson coefficient
Courtesy Geomec a.s.
Modified PKN model: effect of mud viscosity

25.0

20.0
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Mud viscosity (cP)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

Modified PKN model: effect of mud loss rate

30.0

25.0
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mud loss rate (bbl/min)
Courtesy Geomec a.s.
Modified PKN model: effect of plugging time

100.0

90.0

80.0
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Plugging time (min)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

Modified PKN model: effect of Rate of penetration

120.0

100.0
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Rate Of Penetration (m/hr)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

Role and Design of Plugging Material
 The plugging material is a mixture of mud
clay, barite, formation debris (cuttings),
plus carefully sized LCM
 It plugs the induced fracture rapidly, and
is increased permanently by propping
 The effect is limited in extent, but the
stress does not relax during drilling
 The LCM is designed (concentration, size
range) based on the mud parameters
 : www.geomec.com for further details