Babas Samudera Hafwandi - Resume Paper SPE-2163-PA - 20201201

TM 6004 – Teknik Pemboran Lanjut
RESUME PAPER SPE-2163-PA

FRACTURE GRADIENT PREDICTION AND IT’S
APLLICATION IN OIL FIELD OPERATIONS
Babas Samudera Hafwandi (22220003)

Program Studi Magister Teknik Perminyakan ITB
1
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Previous Methods of Predicting Fracture Pressure Gradient
3. A Revised Approach
4. How to Apply the New Technique
5. Other Applications
2
Outline (Continued)
6. How to Develop the Techniques for Other Areas

7. Conclusions
8. Standard Related.
3
1. Introduction
• The subject of many discussions and technical papers in the
last 20 years has been the prediction of the wellbore pressure
gradients that are required to induce or extend fractures in
subsurface formations.
• The subject merits this attention because of the frequently
recurring problems that arise from an inability to predict
fracture pressure gradients.
4
1. Introduction (Continued)
• Encountered in several common types of operations in the oil
industry are problems associated with the prediction of
formation fracture pressure gradients.
• When wells are being drilled in both new and old fields, lost
circulation is often a very troublesome and expensive
problem.
• Complete loss of circulation has been disastrous in some
cases.
5
• Many times, such disasters could have been avoided if
techniques for calculating fracture pressure gradient had
been employed in the well plans, and if casing strings had
been set, and mud weight plans had been followed
accordingly.
• In areas of abnormally pressured formations, the prediction
of fracture gradients during the well planning stage is
extremely important.
6
• There are several published methods used to determine
fracture pressure gradients.
• However, none of these methods appears to be general enough
to be used with much reliability in all areas.
7
2. Previous Method of Predicting Fracture
Pressure Gradient
• There are 2 previous method for predicting the fracture
pressure gradient, which are:
1. Hubbert and Wills method

2. Matthews and Kelly method.
8
2.1. Hubbert and Wills Method
• In 1957, Hubbert and Willis published a classical paper that
included the development of an equation used to predict the
fracture extension pressure gradient in areas of incipient
normal faulting.
• Hubbert and Willis Method proposed an empirical expression
for the magnitude of the least principal stress as a function of
depth in the Gulf of Mexico region.
9
2.1. Hubbert and Wills Method (Continued)
• Hubbert and Willis Method conclude that horizontal fractures
cannot be produced by hydraulic pressures less than the total
pressure of the overburden.
• These conclulsions are compatible with field experience in
fracturing and with the results of laboratory experimentation.
10
2.1. Hubbert and Wills
Method (Continued)
Fig. 1. Complete stratigraphic section of

gulf of Mexico (Swanson et al., 2013)
11
Fig. 2. Stratigraphic section of gulf of mexico, with the frio formation,

catahoula formation and anahuac formation (Swanson et al., 2013)
12
Method (Continued)
Legends:
= Shale
= Sand
= Carbonates
A1-A5 = Foraminifera marker horizons
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of statigraphic

section of gulf of mexico (Swanson et al.,
2013)
13
• The Frio Formation is one of the major Tertiary
progradational wedges of the Texas Gulf coastal plain.
• During the Oligocene, massive sediment influx from sources
in Mexico and the southwestern United States occurred as a
result of uplift and erosion that started in Mexico and was
followed by uplift and erosion along the western margin of
the Gulf basin itself.
14
• The Frio Formation is overlain by the Anahuac Formation, a
transgressive marine shale, in Texas and Louisiana.
• The Anahuac onlaps the regressive Frio Formation in
downdip areas, and it is overlain by the progradational
sandstones of the lower Miocene.
15
• Anahuac Formation strata of southwestern Louisiana and
Texas are nearly identical, consisting of light- to dark-
greenish gray calcareous shale interbedded with thin beds of
locally calcareous sandstone and locally thin limestones.
• Anahuac sediments are more calcareous from west to east.
Carbonates are found where clastic influx was minimal, in
the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
16
• The hydraulic-fracturing technique of well stimulation is one
of the major developments in petroleum engineering of the
last decade.
• The technique itself is mechanically related to three other
phenomena:
17
1. Pressure parting in water injection wells in secondary-

recovery operations.
2. Lost circulation during drilling.
3. The breakdown of formations during squeeze-cementng
operations all of which appear to involve the formation of
open fractures by pressure applied in a wellbore.
18
• The approach frequently made to the problem of underground
stresses is to assume that the stress field is hydrostatic or
nearly hydrostatic with the three principal stresses
approximately equal to one another and to the pressure of the
overburden.
• The general stress condition underground is therefore one in
which the three mutually perpendicular principal stresses are
unequal.
19
• If fluid pressure were applied locally within rocks in this
condition, and the pressure increased until rupture or parting
of the rocks results, that plane along which fracture or parting
is first possible is the one perpendicular to the least principal
stress.
• It is here postulated that this plane is also the one along
which parting is most likely to occur (Fig. 4).
20
Method (Continued)
Fig. 4. Stress element and preferred

plane of fracture (Hubbert et al.,
1957).
21
• Figs. 5 and 6 show a box having a glass front, and containing
ordinary sand.
• In the middle there is a partition which may be moved from
left to right by turning a hand screw.
• The white lines are markers of powdered plaster of paris
which have no mechanical significance.
22
• As the partition is moved to the right, a normal fault with a
dip of about 60° develops in the left-hand compartment, as
shown in Fig. 5.
• With further movement a series of thrust faults with dips of
about 30° develop in the right-hand compartment, as shown
in Fig. 6.
• The general nature of the stresses which accompany the
failure of the sand may be seen in Fig. 7.
23
Fig. 5. Sand-box experiment showing normal fault (Hubbert et

al., 1957). 24
Fig. 6. Sand-box experiment showing thrust fault (Hubbert et al.,

1957). 25
• Adopting the usual convention of designating the greatest,
intermediate, and least principal stresses by σ1, σ2, and σ3,,
respectively.
• In the left hand compartment σ3 will be the horizontal stress,
which is reduced as the partition is moved to the right.
• σ1, will be the vertical stress, which is equal to the pressure of
the overlying material.
26
• In the right-hand compartment, however, σ1, will be horizontal,
increasing as the partition is moved, and σ3, will be vertical
and equal to the pressure of the overlying material.
• A third type of failure, known as transcurrent faulting, This
occurs when the greatest and least principal stresses are both
horizontal and failure occurs by horizontal motion along a
vertical plane.
• In all three kinds of faults, failure occurs at some critical
relationship between σ1, and σ3.
27
σ1, Psi σ3, Psi
σ3, Psi σ1, Psi
Fig. 7. Section showing approximate stress conditions in

sand box experiments (Hubbert et al., 1957).
28
• A very convenient method of graphically representing these
expressions, known as the Mohr stress representation,
consists in plotting values of normal and shear stress.
• The foregoing theoretical analysis is directly applicable to
solid rocks provided the Mohr envelopes have been
experimentally determined.
29
• In order to do this it is necessary to subject rock specimens to
a series of triaxial compression tests under wide ranges of
values of greatest and least principal stresses σ1, and σ3.
• It has been found that at sufficiently high pressures nearly all
rocks deform plastically and the Mohr envelopes become
approximately parallel to the σ-axis.
30
• However, at lower pressures most rocks fail by brittle fracture and
within this domain the envelopes are approximated by the equation:
τ = ± (τ0 + σ tan θ)………………………………….…………..(1)

where:
τ = shear stress at failure, psi
τ0 = cohesive resistance of the rock, psi
σ= normal stress at failure plane, psi
θ = angle of internal friction, degree.
31
τ, Psi 2.1. Hubbert and Wills
Method (Continued)
σ, Psi
Fig. 8. Typical mohr envelopes

for rock (Hubbert et al., 1957).
32
• The Mohr envelopes for tests on a sandstone and an
anhydrite made by J. W. Handin of the Shell Development
Exploration and Production Research Laboratory are shown
in Figs. 9 and 10.
• As an example, the Tertiary sediments of the Texas and
Louisiana Gulf Coast have undergone recurrent normal
faulting throughout Tertiary time and up to the present.
33
• This indicates that a normal-fault stress system must have
been continuously present which intermittently reached the
breaking points for the rocks, causing the stresses temporarily
to relax and then gradually to build up again.
• A large part of the region of West Texas and the Mid-
Continent is also a region of tectonic relaxation characterized
by older normal faults.
34
Method (Continued)
τ, Psi
Fig. 9. Mohr envelopes for oil

creek sandstone (Hubbert et al.,
1957).
σ, Psi 35
Method (Continued)
τ, Psi
Fig. 10. Mohr envelopes for blaine

anhydrite (Hubbert et al., 1957).
σ, Psi 36
Besides laboratory experiments using the mohr failure criteria in

the sand-box experiment. Hubbert and Willis also used several
considerations to develop the method, which are :
1. Stress distorsions caused by the borehole by assuming that

rock is elastic, the borehole is smooth and cylindrical and
borehole axis vertical and parallel to one of the pre existing
regional principal stress
37
2. The effect of the pressure applied in the borehole by assumed

outer radius of cylinder is allowed to become very large and
external pressure is set to zero.
3. The effect of penetrating fluid by assumed penetrating fluid an

increment of pressure in the fracture and radial flow away
from a well bore.
38
4. Orientation of the fractures produced by considering the

injection pressures and fracture orientations for various
tectonic conditions, it follows that, in regions characterized by
active normal faulting, vertical fractures should be formed
with injection pressures less than the overburden pressure.
39
Since the great majority of fracturing operations in the Gulf

Coast, Mid-Continent, and West Texas-New Mexico regions
require injection pressures less than the overburden pressure.
40
• Field evidence data derived from experience with hydraulic
fracturing, squeeze cementing, and lost circulation are fully
consistent with the foregoing conclusions.
• In the Gulf Coast area Recent normal faulting indicates that
vertical fractures should be formed with injection pressures less
than the total overburden pressure.
• In the Mid-Continent and West Texas regions, older normal
faulting, although comprising more ambiguous evidence, also
favors vertical fracturing.
41
• To demonstrate fracturing experimentation, four experiments
were performed under each of the two stress conditions, and in
every case the fractures were formed perpendicular to the least
principal stress.
• The experimental arrangement consisted of a 2-gal polyethylene
bottle, with its top cut off, used as a container in which was
placed a glass tubing assembly consisting of an inner mold and
concentric outer casings.
42
• The procedure was to place the glass tubing assembly in the
liquid gelatin, and after solidification to withdraw the inner
mold leaving a "wellbore" cased above and below an open-hole
section.
• Stresses were then applied to the gelatin in two ways.
43
• The first, Fig. 11, was to squeeze the polyethylene container
laterally, thereby forcing it into an elliptical cross section, and
producing a compression in one horizontal direction and an
extension at right angles in the other.
• The least principal stress was therefore horizontal, and vertical
fractures should be expected in a vertical plane, as shown in
Fig. 11.
44
• In other experiments the container was wrapped with rubber
tubing stretched in tension, Fig. 12, thus producing radial
compression and a vertical extension.
• In this case, the least principal stress was vertical, and
horizontal fractures could be expected, as shown in Fig. 12. The
plaster slurry was injected from an aspirator bottle to which air
pressure was applied by means of a squeeze bulb.
45
Method (Continued)
Fig. 11. Vertical fracture produced

under stress conditions (Hubbert
et al., 1957).
46
Method (Continued)
Fig. 12. Horizontal fracture produced

under stress conditions (Hubbert et
al., 1957).
47
• Hubbert and Willis showed the fracture pressure gradient to be
a function of overburden stress gradient, formation pressure,
and stress ratio this leads to Eq. 2:
......................................................(2)
Where:
48
D = depth, ft
pw = wellbore pressure, psi
p = formation pressure, psi
S = overburden stress, psi
σ = net effective overburden stress, σ = S - p, psi
v = Poisson's ratio, dimensionless.
49
• When the assumptions are made that S/D = 1.0 and v = 0.25, Eq.
2 reduces to which is known as the Hubbert and WiIlis equation:
...............................................................(3)
Where:
D = depth, ft
p = formation pressure, psi.
50
• Under these conditions, the fracture gradient is calculated to
be a constant with increasing depth for all normally pressured
formations.
• Eq. 3 predicts values that are usually too low compared with
values from field data.
51
• Eq. 3 was used for comparative purposes to calculate Curve 2
of Fig. 14, using the pressure gradient curve data (Curve 1 of
Fig.14) as determined from the log data of Figs. 13A and 13B.
• Note that pw/D increases only when p/D increases.
52
• Similarly, the log data for Well B were used with Fig. 13B to
determine the pressure gradient of Well B.
• The results make up Curve 1 of Fig. 16. Curve 2 of Fig. 16
shows the fracture gradient computed by the Hubbert and
Willis equation.
53
• The same behavior is to be observed as in the first example.
However, experience has shown that Pw/D increases with
depth, regardless of the pressure behavior, until the abnormal
pressure section is traversed.
• Then Pw/D may decrease as shown by the other curves in Figs.
14 and 16.
54
Method (Continued)
Depth – 1000 ft
Fig. 13A. Log data from Frio formation

Nueces County, Texas (Matthews et
al.,1967).
10-3m/Ωm2 55
Fig. 13B. Relationship between shale
resistivity parameter Rn(sh)/Rob(sh) and reservoir
fluid pressure gradient (Hottman et al.,1967).
Equivalent Mud Weight, lb/gal

Reservoir FPG, psi/ft
NORMAL R(sh) / OBSERVED R(sh) 56

• Well logging devices that measure formation conductivity or
resistivity (the reciprocal of conductivity) are used on almost
every well drilled.
• Since the data are almost always readily available,
conductivity is the most common porosity-dependent
parameter used in the estimation of formation pore pressure
from well logs.
57
• The term formation factor, FR, generally is used to refer to the
ratio of the resistivity of the water-saturated formation, R o, to
the resistivity of the water, Rw.
• The formation factor also can be expressed in terms of a
conductivity ratio:
58
•…………….................……………………..(4)

…………..................…………………….….. (5)
where:
ϕ = Porosity (Fraction)
FR = Formation factor (Fraction).
59
Ro = Resistivity water-saturated-formation (Ωm 2 /m)
Rw = Water resistivity (Ωm2 /m)
Cw = Water conductivity (m/Ωm2)
Co = Water-saturated-formation conductivity (m/Ωm 2)
m = Rock cementation factor (dimensionless).
60
• Formation conductivity Co or resistivity Ro varies with
lithology , water salinity, and temperature as well as porosity.
• To avoid changes caused by lithology, only values obtained in
essentially pure shales are used.
61
• Shales containing some limestone are avoided because of the
large effect of the limestone fraction on observed conductivity.
• The effect of changes in salinity and temperature can be taken
into account in the calculation of the formation factor through
use of the correct in-situ value of the water conductivity C o or
resistivity Ro for the given temperature and salinity at the
depth of interest.
62
• Formation conductivity or resistivity near the borehole also is
affected significantly by exposure to the drilling fluid.
• Even though shale formations are relatively impermeable to
the invasion of mud filtrate, changes in the shale properties
gradually occur as a result of chemical interaction between the
drilling fluid and the borehole wall.
63
• Sections of the borehole composed of highly water sensitive
shales give different log readings on logging runs made at
different times.
• This problem can be minimized by using a well logging device
with a deep radius of investigation.
64
Method (Continued)
4
Depth – 1000 ft
1 2 3
5
Fig. 15. Formation and fracture

Mud Weight, ppg
pressure gradients (Eaton. 1969).
Pressure Gradient, psi/ft 65

Method (Continued)
Legends:
4
Depth – 1000 ft
1 2 3
5
Fig. 15. Enlagred graph of formation

Mud Weight, ppg
and fracture pressure gradients
Pressure Gradient, psi/ft
(Eaton. 1969). 66
Method (Continued)
Depth – 1000 ft
Fig. 16. Well B, East Cameron,

fracture pressure gradient comparison
(Eaton. 1969).
Gradient, psi/ft 67
Method (Continued)
Legends:
Depth – 1000 ft
Fig. 17. Enlarge curve well B, East

Cameron, fracture pressure gradient
comparison (Eaton. 1969).
Gradient, psi/ft 68
2.2. Matthews and Kelly Method
• In 1967, Matthews and Kelly published another fracture
pressure gradient equation that is different from that of
Hubbert and Willis in that a variable "matrix stress coefficient"
concept was utilized in the Gulf of Mexico region, by
assuming overburden load 1.0 psi/ft
• Fig. 19 is a reproduction of their curves showing the variable
stress ratio as a function of depth for two areas in the Gulf of
Mexico region.
69
2.2. Matthews and Kelly Method (Continued)
Fig. 18. Expanded stratigraphic section of gulf of mexico

(Swanson et al., 2013) 70
2.2. Matthews and Kelly
Method (Continued)
Fig. 19. Matrix stress coefficient

(Matthews et al.,1967).
71
• To calculate a fracture gradient by this method one must use
the following procedure:
1. Obtain the formation pore pressure

2. Determine the effective stress, σ = 1.0 D – p
72
•3. Determine the depth Di for which the matrix stress σ would be
the normal value:
……………………………………………….(6)
Where:
Di = equivalent depth of lowermost normally pressured
formation, ft
σ = effective stress, psi.
73
•4. Use the value of Di from the preceding step with Fig. 4 to
determine Ki.
5. With the resulting data, calculate the fracture gradient using
the Matthews and Kelly fracture gradient equation, which
follows:
………………….........………...……...(7)
Where:
D = depth, ft.
74
p = formation pressure, psi
Ki = matrix stress coefficient, dimensionless.
6. Plot the fracture gradient as a function of graph.
75
• In this manner, Curve 4 of Fig. 14 and Curve 3 of Fig. 16 were
generated, The effect of depth and formation pressure is
readily evident.
• However, there appear to be two weaknesses in the approach,
one of which is the assumption that the overburden stress is
equal to 1.0 psi/ft of depth.
• The other weakness is that the stress ratio used in calculating
the fracture gradient in abnormally pressured formations is
that of the deepest normally pressured formation.
76
3. Revised Approach
• Throughout the remainder of this work, it is postulated that the
assumptions leading to Eq. 2 are valid and that all of the
independent variables are functions of depth.
• The problem is to determine the relationship of overburden
stress, pore pressure, and Poisson’s ratio with depth.
77
3. Revised Approach (Continued)
• Since it is accepted here that abnormal formation pressure
gradients may be determined from logs, that aspect of the
problem is solved.
• The next steps are to assume that· the overburden stress
gradient is 1.0 psi/ft, then to solve Eq. 2 for the stress ratio
group and to evaluate Eq. 8 with field data.
78
•.............................................................................(8)

Where:
D = depth, ft
p = formation pressure, psi.
79

v = Poisson's ratio, dimensionless.
80
• A great deal of data from the analysis of hydraulic fracturing
treatments in west texas was published by Crittendon.
• These data were used to develop the left curve of Fig. 20.
• It can be seen that for the producing formations of the west
texas area, the assumptions S/D = 1.0 and v = 0.25 are valid.
81
Gulf coast variable
overburden
3. Revised Approach
Overburden equals
1.0 psi/ft
(Continued)
----------------
Extreme Upper Limit

shales
Depth – 1000 ft
West Texas
overburden
equals 1.0
psi/ft
----------------
Producing
formation
Fig. 20. Variation of poisson’s ratio

with depth (Eaton.1969).
Poisson’s ratio, dimensionless 82
• Data given by Costley were used to back-calculate the middle
Poisson ratio curve of Fig. 20.
• Note the curvature of the trend of Poisson ratio vs depth for
the gulf coast area.
83
• This is caused by the sediments being younger and more
compressible near the surface, but less compressible and more
plastic with depth.
• For this reason the curve approaches 0.5 as an upper limit.
• This limit is the Poisson ratio of an incompressible material in
the plastic failure environment.
84
• Example results of fracture pressure gradient calculations
using the middle Poisson ratio curve of Fig. 5 and Eq. 1 are
included for comparative purposes.
• These are shown by Curve 6 of Fig. 14 and Curve 4 of Fig. 16.
85
• From the preceding calculations it becomes evident that the
variation of overburden stress with well depth must be
determined where formations are compressible, such as in the
gulf coast area.
• A composite group of density logs from many gulf coast wells
was available.
• These logs were used to plot bulk density vs depth, which is
shown in Fig. 21.
86
• The values for 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 stress curve of Fig. 22. was
produced.
• The value of overburden stress read from the curve at any
depth represents the real average overburden gradient at that
specific depth.
87
3. Revised Approach
(Continued)
Upper limit of all
data points
Depth – 1000 ft
Lower limit of all

data points
Fig. 21. Composite bulk density

curve from density log data for
the gulf coast (Eaton. 1969).
Bulk Density, gm/cc 88
3. Revised Approach
(Continued)
Depth – 1000 ft
Fig. 22. Composite overburden

stress gradient for all normally
compacted Gulf Coast
formations (Eaton. 1969).
Overburden Stress Gradient, psi/ft 89
• The same procedure was used for similar data from wells in
the santa barbara channel.
• Bulk densities from logs and the resulting overburden stress
gradient curve are shown in Figs. 23 and 24, respectively, with
the results being similar to those given in Figs. 21 and 22.
• It was concluded that variable overburden stress gradient
curves, as determined from density logs of good quality, are
far superior to any assumed constant number.
90
3. Revised Approach
(Continued)
Depth – 1000 ft
Fig. 23. Bulk density curve from

density logs santa barbara
channel (Eaton. 1969).
Bulk Density, gm/cc 91
3. Revised Approach
(Continued)
Depth – 1000 ft
Fig. 24. Overburden stress gradient

santa barbara channel (Eaton.
1969).
Overburden Load, psi/ft 92
• Based on Eq. 8, the same field data, and Fig. 22, the Poisson
ratio trend for the gulf coast area was back-calculated and
plotted on the right side of Fig. 16.
• Note that this curve approaches the middle curve at greater
depths where the overburden stress gradient does approach 1.0
psi/ft.
93
• It was concluded that Figs. 20 and 22 could be used with
formation pressure data and Eq. 2 to predict accurately the
fracture gradients in the gulf coast.
• The same method will apply in other areas, provided that the
overburden stress gradient and Poisson ratio curves are
determined from good data.
94
• The preceding discussion illustrates a method whereby all
three variables that control the fracture pressure gradient are
determined from well data.
• A nomograph for solving Eq. 2 to predict fracture pressure
gradients is shown, with an example calculation, in Fig. 10.
95
Overburden (psi/ft)
Formation pressure (psi/ft)
Pois
son
rati ’s
o
(Eaton. 1969).
Fracture gradient (lb/gal)
Fracture gradient (psi/ft)

Fig. 25. Fracture gradient nomograph
96
Formation pressure (psi/ft)

1. Fig. 26 shows a plot of resistivities for a well in the east
cameron area. Data from Fig. 26 are used with Fig. 13A to
produce the formation pressure curve of Fig. 27.
Mud weights for this area should be determined in this
manner during the well planning stage.
The mud weight scale at the bottom of Fig. 27 and the
formation pressure gradient curve dictate the minimum mud
weight program.
97
4. How to Apply the New
Technique (Continued)
Depth – 1000 ft
Fig. 26. Log data, Well C, East

Cameron (Eaton. 1969).
Rsh, 10-3m/Ωm2 98
4. How to Apply the New
Fracture
Technique (Continued)
Pressure
Depth – 1000 ft
Formation
Pressure
Fig. 27. Fracture gradient with

variable overburden and Poisson's
Equivalent mud weight, lbs/gal
ratio included, Well C, East
Cameron (Eaton. 1969).
Gradient, Psi/ft 99
(Continued)
2. The next step is to determine and plot fracture gradient vs
depth. (This is illustrated in Fig. 27, which shows five
fracture gradient curves).
It is assumed that the overburden gradient averages 0.8 psi/ft
all the way down.
The graphic solution of Eq. 1 shown by Fig. 25 is used with
the variable Poisson's ratio curve (right-hand curve of Fig.
20) to find the fracture gradient vs depth.
100
(Continued)
The process is repeated for assumed overburden stress
gradients of 0.9, 1.0, and 1.1 psi/ft.
This illustrates somewhat elaborately the effect of
overburden stress gradient on fracture pressure gradient.
However, in actual practice only the true fracture gradient
should be used.
101
(Continued)
3. The casing points can be selected by making use of the
formation pressure gradient curve (minimum mud weight
curve) and the true fracture gradient curve.
The casing points should be selected by using both the
formation pressure and the fracture gradient plots.
102
• A knowledge of fracture gradient prediction methods is
extremely useful in such everyday operations as cementing,
sand consolidating, matrix and fracture acidizing, and
hydraulic fracturing.
103
5. Other Applications (Continued)
• Another important application is in secondary recovery.
• In most injection operations, it is desirable to stay below the
fracturing pressures to prevent channeling from injector to
producer.
104
• Of course, in the event that such vertical fractures all line up
parallel with lines of injectors, good linear sweep patterns
result.
• In such cases, the general direction of the fractures should be
determined and injection and producing wells should be lined
up to take advantage of induced fractures.
105
• In many cases, injection is started in old wells that have been
producers for years.
• Here the formation pressures are usually very low in the
surrounding formation.
• Low formation pressures cause low fracture pressure, much
the same as high formation pressures cause high fracture
pressures. Eq. 2. predicts this behavior.
106
• However, more vivid proof is given in Fig. 28, in which the
results of a pressure-rate test are shown.
• Fracturing occurred when a gradient of 0.57 psi/ft was
reached, as shown by the sudden change in slope at about
700 B/D injection.
• New infill wells in the same area are hydraulically fractured
with gradients of 0.68 to 0.70 psi/ft. The relatively low
fracture gradients of old producers are due to low formation
pressures.
107
(Continued)
Bhp gradient, psi/ft
Fig. 28. Fracture gradient of a

west texas water injection well
(Eaton. 1969).
q, bbl/day 108
6. How to Develop the Technique for Other
Areas
The data necessary to develop this method for other
tectonically relaxed areas of the earth are as follows:
1. Overburden stress gradient vs depth. Such data can be

derived from bulk densities taken from logs, seismic data or
shale density measurements.
A plot of bulk density vs depth can then be converted to a
plot of average overburden stress gradient vs depth.
109
Areas (Continued)
2.Actual fracture pressure gradients for several depths. These
can be lost-circulation or squeeze data or actual fracturing
data.
3.Formation pressures that apply to the data in Item 2. (In
Items 2 and 3, the depths must correspond).
110
Areas (Continued)
• With these data and Eq. 8., the Poisson's ratio curve for the
area can be back-calculated and plotted vs depth.
• The result will be a curve similar to those of Fig. 20 and a
curve similar to that of Fig. 22. With these curves and Fig.
25, fracture gradients can be predicted quite easily and
quickly.
• These values can be plotted as a function of depth and the
resulting curves can be used in all the operations previously
described.
111
8. Conclusions
• In drilling well plans, well stimulation plans, and secondary
recovery plans, fracture pressure gradient should be
considered.
• Poisson's ratio for rocks increases with depth in the gulf coast
area.
• The Poisson's ratio trend, which can be back calculated using
field data, will not be exactly the same for data from different
areas.
112
8. Conclusions (Continued)
• In the gulf coast area, the average overburden stress gradient
does not equal 1.0 psi/ft, but instead is about 0.85 psi/ft near
the surface and increases smoothly to 1.0 psi/ft at about
20,000 ft of depth.
• A similar trend has been established for the santa barbara
channel area.
113
• The present method is a modification of the Hubbert and
Willis approach, using a variable Poisson ratio and a variable
overburden stress gradient with depth.
• The method will predict the fracture gradient for the gulf
coast area with as much accuracy as the log-derived pressure
gradient.
114
• Using this approach and field data, the same method can be
developed for other areas.
• The method is very simple, and Fig. 25 may be used as a
working chart for any area.
• Hydraulically induced fractures should be formed
approximately perpendicular to the least principal stress.
Therefore, in tectonically relaxed areas they should be
vertical, while in tectonically compressed areas they should
be horizontal.
115
9. 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.
116
9. Standard Related (Continued)
2. API SPEC 12J (1989)
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.
117
3. API SPEC 5CT (2002)
Covers spesification of casing and tubing, and related of

prediction of fracture pressure.
118
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.
119
Refrences
• Eaton, Ben A. (1969). Fracture gradient prediction and its

application in oilfield operations. Journal of Petroleum
Technology.
• Hackley, Paul C. (2012). Geologic Assessment of Undiscovered
Conventional Oil and Gas Resources—Middle Eocene
Claiborne Group, United States Part of the Gulf of Mexico
Basin. Reston, Virginia: United States Geological Survey.
• Hubbert, M. K., & Willis, D. G. (1957). Mechanics Of
Hydraulic Fracturing. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
120
References (Continued)
• Swanson, S. M., & Karlsen, A. W. (2008). USGS Assessment of
Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources for the Oligocene Frio
and Anahuac Formations, Onshore Gulf of Mexico Basin, USA.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
• Swanson, S. M., Karlsen, A. W. & Valentine, B.J (2013).
Geologic Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources—
Oligocene Frio and Anahuac Formations, United States Gulf of
Mexico Coastal Plain and State Waters. Reston, Virginia:
United States Geological Survey.
• Bourgoyne, A.T., Millheim, K.K., & Chevenert, M.E. (1986).
Applied Drilling Engineering. Richardson, Texas: Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Chapter 5 and 6. 121
• API RP 13B (2009): Recommended Practice for Field Testing

Water-based Drilling Fluids. American Petroleum Institute.
Washington DC – USA.
• 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.
122
• NORSOK D-010 (2004): Well integrity in drilling and well

operations. Standards Norway. Lysaker – Norway.
123

Babas Samudera Hafwandi - Resume Paper SPE-2163-PA - 20201201

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

Babas Samudera Hafwandi - Resume Paper SPE-2163-PA - 20201201

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TM 6004 – Teknik Pemboran Lanjut

RESUME PAPER SPE-2163-PA

Babas Samudera Hafwandi (22220003)

6. How to Develop the Techniques for Other Areas

1. Hubbert and Wills method

Fig. 1. Complete stratigraphic section of

Fig. 2. Stratigraphic section of gulf of mexico, with the frio formation,

A1-A5 = Foraminifera marker horizons

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of statigraphic

1. Pressure parting in water injection wells in secondary-

Fig. 4. Stress element and preferred

Fig. 5. Sand-box experiment showing normal fault (Hubbert et

Fig. 6. Sand-box experiment showing thrust fault (Hubbert et al.,

σ1, Psi σ3, Psi

σ3, Psi σ1, Psi

Fig. 7. Section showing approximate stress conditions in

τ = ± (τ0 + σ tan θ)………………………………….…………..(1)

Fig. 8. Typical mohr envelopes

Fig. 9. Mohr envelopes for oil

Fig. 10. Mohr envelopes for blaine

Besides laboratory experiments using the mohr failure criteria in

1. Stress distorsions caused by the borehole by assuming that

2. The effect of the pressure applied in the borehole by assumed

3. The effect of penetrating fluid by assumed penetrating fluid an

4. Orientation of the fractures produced by considering the

Since the great majority of fracturing operations in the Gulf

Fig. 11. Vertical fracture produced

Fig. 12. Horizontal fracture produced

Fig. 13A. Log data from Frio formation

Equivalent Mud Weight, lb/gal

NORMAL R(sh) / OBSERVED R(sh) 56

FR = Formation factor (Fraction).

Fig. 15. Formation and fracture

Pressure Gradient, psi/ft 65

Fig. 15. Enlagred graph of formation

Fig. 16. Well B, East Cameron,

Fig. 17. Enlarge curve well B, East

Fig. 18. Expanded stratigraphic section of gulf of mexico

Fig. 19. Matrix stress coefficient

1. Obtain the formation pore pressure

6. Plot the fracture gradient as a function of graph.

S = overburden stress, psi

Extreme Upper Limit

Fig. 20. Variation of poisson’s ratio

Lower limit of all

Fig. 21. Composite bulk density

Fig. 22. Composite overburden

Fig. 23. Bulk density curve from

Fig. 24. Overburden stress gradient

Formation pressure (psi/ft)

Fracture gradient (lb/gal)

Fracture gradient (psi/ft)

Formation pressure (psi/ft)

Fig. 26. Log data, Well C, East

Fig. 27. Fracture gradient with

Fig. 28. Fracture gradient of a

1. Overburden stress gradient vs depth. Such data can be

1. API RP13 B (2009)

To provide standard procedures for the testing of drilling fluids

2. API SPEC 12J (1989)

Covers minimum requirements for the design, fabrication and

3. API SPEC 5CT (2002)

Covers spesification of casing and tubing, and related of