TM 6004 – Teknik Pemboran Lanjut

RESUME PAPER SPE-4133-PA

OFFSHORE FRACTURE GRADIENTS

Babas Samudera Hafwandi (22220003)

Program Studi Magister Teknik Perminyakan ITB
1
Outline

1. Introduction
2. Development of the Technique – Onshore Fracture
Gradients
3. Effects of Mud Return Elevation
4. Conclusions
5. Standard Related.

2
1. Introduction
• The consideration of formation fracture gradients in selecting
casing setting depths is fundamental to the preparation of an
acceptable drilling program.
• When Exxon Co. U.S.A. undertook the deepwater challenges
of the santa barbara channel, a project was initiated to
develop a fracture-gradient prediction technique that would
assess the impact of water depth.

3
2. Development of the Technique – Onshore
Fracture Gradients
• As frequently referenced, Hubbert and Willis established a
theoretical basis for subsequent work in the development of
actual fracture-gradient prediction techniques.

4
2. Development of the Technique – Onshore
Fracture Gradients (Continued)
• Later theoretical studies of porous bodies have concluded
that the most important factors affecting fracture initiation
pressure are the overburden stress, the formation fluid
pressure, and the horizontal-to-vertical, stress ratio, whereas
rock compressibtities and Poisson’s ratio have relatively little
influence.

5
2. Development of the Technique – Onshore
Fracture Gradients (Continued)
•  Matthews and Kelly in a technique presented in 1967,
correctly indicated that the stress ratio, F σ, was the most
significant and yet elusive variable.
• The following relation was presented for the fracture
gradient:

……………………………………….....(1)

Where:
6
2. Development of the Technique – Onshore
Fracture Gradients (Continued)
• gf = Fracture gradient. Psi/ft
• Fσ = horizontal : vertical stress ratio, dimensionless
• gve= effective vertical stress gradient (matrix stress), psi/ft
• gp = formation pressure gradient, psi/ft.

7
2. Development of the Technique – Onshore
Fracture Gradients (Continued)
•  By assuming a total overburden gradient of 1.0 psi/ft, we can
estimate the effective vertical stress as follows:
…………………………….....(2)

Where:
gve = effective vertical stress gradient (matrix stress), psi/ft
gp = formation pressure gradient, psi/ft
gob = total overburden gradient, psi/ft.
8
2. Development of the Technique – Onshore
Fracture Gradients (Continued)
• For normally pressured formations, the stress ratio, Fσ is
empirically correlated. on the basis of field data, for given
area as function of depth.
• The onshore aspect of the technique that was developed for
the santa barbara channel area incorporates these stress-ratio
concepts with a method to estimate actual overburden
gradient rather than using the assumed value of 1.0 psi/ft.

9
2. Development of the Technique – Onshore
Fracture Gradients (Continued)
• Since the overburden stress at any depth should be the
cumulative weight of the formations above that depth, well
data that are indicative of formation density can be used to
estimate overburden.
• Techniques based on velocity data from seismic surveys and
sonic logs or utilize formation bulk density logs directly, then
selected latter method and estimated overburden with Eq.3:

10
2. Development of the Technique – Onshore
Fracture Gradients (Continued)
•……………………………...…….(3)
 

Where:
gob = total overburden gradient, psi/ft
D = depth below datum, ft
ρb = bulk density, gm/cc
0.4335 = constant conversion of gm/cc to psi/ft.

11
2. Development of the Technique – Onshore
Fracture Gradients (Continued)
• In
  practice, of course, a simple arithmetic average of the bulk
densities of the overlaying formations, , will suffice:

…………………………………………..(4)

Where:
gob = total overburden gradient, psi/ft
= average bulk density, gm/cc
0.4335 = constant conversion of gm/cc to psi/ft.
12
2. Development of the Technique – Onshore
Fracture Gradients (Continued)
•  The final form of the fracture-gradient prediction formula
used in the channel is given as Eq. 5:

....................................................(5)

Where:
gf = Fracture gradient. Psi/ft
Fσ = horizontal : vertical stress ratio, dimensionless.

13
2. Development of the Technique – Onshore
Fracture Gradients (Continued)
gob = total overburden gradient, psi/ft
gp = formation pressure gradient, psi/ft.

• Where Fσ is correlated empirically for each area vs depth, g ob

is determined from offset-well bulk density logs as shown in
Eq. 4 and gp is determined from the best applicable formation
pressure prediction technique.

14
2. Case Example
• Fig. 1 presents an example plot of bulk density vs depth.
• Exxon's experience in the santa barbara channel has been
satisfactory with the stress ratio correlation given in Fig. 2.
• With these data and assuming a normal formation pressure
gradient (0.44 psi/ft), Eq. 5 is used to generate the typical
onshore fracture gradients in Fig. 3.

15
2. Case Example
(Continued)

Fig. 1. Formation density

(example) (Christman. 1973).
16
 2. Case Example
(Continued)

Fig. 2. Stress ratio vs depth, santa

barbara channel (Christman.
1973). 17
 2. Case Example
(Continued)

Fig. 3. typical onshore fracture

gradients (Christman. 1973).
18
2.1. Effect of Water Depth
• Offshore fracture gradients are calculated in fundamentally
the same manner.
• However, since the uppermost interval is water, which is
considerably less dense than rock, the overburden stress is
less than for a comparable onshore location.
• As a result, fracture gradients are also lower substantially so
in deep water and shallow formations.

19
2.1. Effect of Water Depth (Continued)
• In Fig. 4, a schematic representation of an onshore fracture-
gradient calculation indicates a well with casing set at 1,000
ft and a fracture pressure of 600 psi.
• Since the hydrostatic pressure exerted by the 10-lb/gal mud is
520 psi, this well would not lose circulation unless cuttings
and annular circulating loss caused the BHP to exceed 600
psi (11.5-lb/gal equivalent circulating density).

20
2.1. Effect of Water Depth (Continued)
• The effect of moving this location under 1,500 ft of water is
shown in Fig. 5.
• The overburden contribution of 0.44-psi/ft sea water is an
additional 660 psi, which has the effect (in this case) of
increasing the fracture pressure to 1,260 psi.
• Since the 10.0-lb/gal mud would now exert 1,300 psi
pressure, this hypothetical well would experience lost returns.

21
 2.1. Effect of Water Depth (Continued)

Rock density = 1.88 gm/cc 10

Overburden (815 psi) ppg
mud
in
hole 1000 ft
Formation Stress
Stress Fracture pressure
pressure ratio
ratio
440 psi 0.43
0.43 600 psi 520 psi

Fig. 4. Fracture gradients (Christman. 1973).

22
 2.1. Effect of Water Depth (Continued)
+780 psi

1500 ft Sea Water

Overburden
(660 psi)
10
Rock density = 1.88 gm/cc ppg
Overburden (1475 psi) mud
1000 ft
in
Below
Formation Stress Fracture hole
mudline
pressure ratio pressure
1100 psi 0.43 1280 psi 1300 psi
Fig. 5. Offshore fracture gradients (Christman. 1973). 23
2.1. Effect of Water Depth (Continued)
•  To express this idea analytically, Eq. 4 is separated to isolate
the water depth:

……………......…………….(6)

Where:
gob = total overburden gradient, psi/ft
= average bulk density, gm/cc
0.4335 = constant conversion of gm/cc to psi/ft. 24
2.1. Effect of Water Depth (Continued)
•  = density of water, gm/cc
D’ = depth below mudline, ft
Dw = water depth, ft
D = depth below datum, ft.

25
2.1. Effect of Water Depth (Continued)
•  For ρw = 1.02 gm/cc (sea water), the result is Eq. 7:

……………......…………….(7)

Where:
gob = total overburden gradient, psi/ft
= average bulk density, gm/cc.

26
2.1. Effect of Water Depth (Continued)
D’ = depth below mudline, ft
Dw = water depth, ft.
D = depth below datum, ft.

27
2.1. Effect of Water Depth (Continued)
• Applying Eq. 7 to the data in Fig. 1 for water depths of 750
and 1,500 ft results in the fracture gradients shown in Fig. 6.
• The significant reduction in fracture gradient caused by water
depth is evident.

28
2.1. Effect of Water Depth (Continued)
• At a 2,000-ft penetration below the mud line in 1,500 ft of
water, the reduction is from 13.0 to 11.0 lb/gal, or almost 15
percent.
• As a result, particular care must be taken in selecting mud
densities in surface hole drilling in deep water in order to
prevent lost circulation.

29
2.1. Effect of Water
Depth (Continued)

Fig. 6. Offshore fracture gradients

(Christman. 1973).
30
2.2. Alternate Stress-Ratio Correlations
• Although the technique presented above has worked, well in
the santa barbara channel, there have been certain exceptions
where fracture pressures were significantly higher or lower
than predicted.

31
2.2. Alternate Stress-Ratio Correlations
(Continued)
• Examination of bulk density logs revealed that in wells that,
experienced low fracture pressures there were zones of
unusually low density exposed in the wellbore, and that high
fracture gradients were accompanied throughout the wellbore
by rocks of greater than normal density.

32
2.2. Alternate Stress-Ratio Correlations
(Continued)
• Normal compaction results in denser rocks and should also
tend to equalize stresses.
• This idea suggests that formation bulk density would
correlate with stress ratio and would be a measure of the
degree of compaction.

33
2.2. Alternate Stress-Ratio Correlations
(Continued)
• The circumstances that govern compaction are numerous, but
include time, geologic history, ability of the rock to creep,
and ability of the pore fluids to escape.
• If the last is the reason for a low bulk density, shale-
compaction theory would suggest the presence of an
abnormal pore pressure.
• Table 1. lists three types of fracture pressure data from
various parts of the channel at depths to 5,000 ft.

34
2.2. Alternate Stress-Ratio Correlations (Continued)
Table 1. Stress ratio vs rock density correlation, santa barbara channel
(Christman., 1973)

35
2.2. Alternate Stress-Ratio Correlations
(Continued)
•  An equivalent stress ratio was calculated for several depths in
each well by rearranging Eq. 5:

........................................................................(8)

Where:
Fσ = horizontal:vertical stress ratio, dimensionless
gf = Fracture gradient, psi/ft.
36
2.2. Alternate Stress-Ratio Correlations
(Continued)
gob = total overburden gradient, psi/ft
gp = formation pressure gradient, psi/ft.

37
2.2. Alternate Stress-Ratio Correlations
(Continued)
• Fracturing is assumed to be at the depth of highest stress ratio
and lowest rock density, and the resulting data are those
shown in the table.
• These stress ratios are plotted vs the rock density in Fig. 7,
and a tentative correlation is shown.

38
2.2. Alternate Stress-Ratio
Correlations (Continued)

Fig. 7. Stress ratio vs rock density

(Christman. 1973).
39
2.2. Alternate Stress-Ratio Correlations
(Continued)
• This technique assumes that the weakest formation in the
well is not necessarily at the casing shoe, a fact that has been
known for some time but that has not been dealt with by
existing prediction techniques.
• Therefore, fracture gradients must be calculated frequently
along the length of the wellbore and not just at the casing
shoes.

40
2.3. Typical Calculation Using Density
Correlation
• Fig. 8 is a plot of formation bulk density from an actual
channel well.
• It is generally adequate to use such plots, which are prepared
by averaging bulk density data over intervals of 50 to 100 ft.
• In this well, a low-density zone occurred at about 4,300 ft
below the mudline; although this could be a warning of
impending abnormal pressure, other factors in this well
verified a normal formation pressure.

41
2.3. Typical Calculation Using Density
Correlation (Continued)
• When the fracture gradients for this well are calculated, the
effect of the low-density zone is pronounced as a major
reduction in fracture gradient.
• These fracture gradients (Fig. 9) show a reduction from
almost 14 lb/gal at 5,000 ft to 11 lb/gal at 5,300 ft subsea.

42
 2.3. Typical Calculation Using
Density Correlation (Continued)
Depth below mudline – 1000 feet

Fig. 8. Typical formation

density plot (Christman. 1973).
Bulk density – gm/cc 43
2.3. Typical Calculation Using
Density Correlation (Continued)

Fig. 9. Typical offshore fracture

gradient (Christman. 1973).
44
3. Effect of Mud-Returns Elevation
• A characteristic of offshore drilling structures is that mud-
return flowlines are substantially elevated above the subsea
datum (see Fig. 10).
• As a result, there is an additional hydrostatic mud pressure
that should be taken into consideration in calculating
equivalent mud density:

45
3. Effect of Mud-Returns Elevation
(Continued)
•…………………………………………….(9)
 

Where:
ρm = fracture mud density, lb/gal
D = depth below datum (subsea), inch
gf = fracture gradient, psi/ft
Z = elevation of mud flowline above datum, ft.

46
 3. Effect of Mud-Returns
Kelly bushing
Mud returns Elevation (Continued)
Subsea
Also MLLW (Mean Low Low Water)

Mudline

Fig. 10. Offshore reference depths

(Christman. 1973).
47
3. Effect of Mud-Returns Elevation
(Continued)
• The effect of this "air-gap“ can be very significant at shallow
penetrations, and emphasizes again the need to use the proper
reference depth in our offshore gradient calculations.
• For example, consider the effect on a subsea fracture gradient
of 10.0 lb/gal (0.52 psi/ft) at 1,000 ft subsea.
• The result of a 75-ft ftowline elevation is a fracture mud
density of only 9,3 lb/gal.

48
4. Conclusions
1.The effect of increasing water depth is to reduce the total
overburden gradient and, as a result, the fonnation fracture
gradient, these reductions are significant at shallow
penetrations in deep water.
2.A fracture gradient prediction technique based on
overburden stress, formation pressure, and stress ratio
provides generally satisfactory results in the santa barbara
channel when the stress ratio is empirically correlated with
depth.

49
4. Conclusions (Continued)
3. The same technique using a stress ratio vs rock bulk density
correlation provides better results in the channel and may
also be applicable in other areas.
4. The elevated mud return flowline usually found in offshore
drilling structures causes an apparent reduction in fracture
mud density that is significant at shallow depths and should
be considered in fracture gradient calculations.

50
5. Standard Related

1. API RP13 B (2009)

To provide standard procedures for the testing of drilling fluids

and Related to the role of drilling mud used in prediction of
pore pressure and leakoff test to predict and verify the value of
fracture pressure.

51
5. Standard Related (Continued)

2. API SPEC 12J (2002)

Covers minimum requirements for the design, fabrication and

shop testing of oilfield type mud gas separators. And related to
the role of the mud gas separator in the qualitative analysis of
the penetrated gas zone for predicting subnormal and abnormal
zones.
52
5. Standard Related (Continued)

3. API SPEC 5CT (1989)

Covers spesification of casing and tubing, and related of

prediction of fracture pressure.

53
5. Standard Related (Continued)

4. NORSOK D-010 (2004)

This NORSOK standard focus on well integrity by defining

the minimum functional and performance oriented
requirements and guidelines for well design, planning and
execution of well operations.

54
Refrences

• Christman, Stan A. (1973). Offshore fracture gradients. Journal

of Petroleum Technology.
• Bourgoyne, A.T., Millheim, K.K., & Chevenert, M.E. (1986).
Applied Drilling Engineering. Richardson, Texas: Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Chapter 5 and 6.
• API RP 13B (2009): Recommended Practice for Field Testing
Water-based Drilling Fluids. American Petroleum Institute.
Washington DC – USA.

55
References (Continued)

• API Spec 5CT (2002): Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries-

Steel Pipes for Use as Casing and Tubing for Wells. American
Petroleum Institute. Washington DC – USA.
• API Spec 12J (1989): Specification for Oil and Gas Separator.
American Petroleum Institute. Washington DC – USA.
• NORSOK D-010 (2004): Well integrity in drilling and well
operations. Standards Norway. Lysaker – Norway.

56