SPE/IADC 25727

Use of Drilling Parameters To Predict In-Situ Stress Bounds

Geir Hareland, New Mexico Inst. of Mining & Technology, and L.L. Hoberock,
Oklahoma State U.
SPE Members
Copyright 1993, SPEfIADC Drilling Conference.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam 23-25 February 1993.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPElIADC Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are SUbject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE or IADC, their officers, or members. Papers presented at SPEIIADC meetings are subject to pUblication
review by Editorial Committees 01 the SPE and IADC. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. lIiustrations may not be copied. The abstract should
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT formation properties, and have used Poisson's ratio

together with measurements taken from electric logs,
This paper reports theory, procedure and results with mixed results [3-4]. These procedures require
on the use of drilling parameters collected during expensive logging operations, which in shallow wells
typical drilling operations to predict bounds on might constitute a large fraction of the total well cost.
minimum principal in-situ stress of rock. These During the drilling of a well, drilling operating
predictions are desired in order that hydraulic parameters, mud properties, and mudlogger samples
fracturability of reservoir rock can be better detennined are usually collected. By using such data in the
and fracturing programs designed without the need for approach proposed here, a potentially less expensive
expensive fracturing stress tests, guesswork, or method is available for in-situ stress determination.
empiricism. A high fidelity tri-eone roller bit drilling Instrumentation for collection of drilling data is
model is used in an "inverted" mode to predict in-situ becoming more routine with most drilling operations,
ultimate compressive rock strength. This compressive and will therefore add little extra cost.
rock strength is a function of effective confining In what follows, we present a new method,
pressure available from published laboratory data for using data collected during normal drilling operations,
various rock types. Knowledge of the compressive to estimate bounds on in-situ stress. The theoretical
rock strength failure as a function of confining background is presented, a step-by-step procedure is
pressure can be used to obtain the Mohr failure listed, and results are compared with field data from
envelope at a given depth for rock. The angle of four ORI SFE wells.
internal friction is determined from the Mohr failure
envelope, which can be used to calculate a "coefficient
for earth at rest" This coefficient, together with DRILLING MODELS
known overburden and pore pressure, can be used to
calculate an upper bound on the minimum horizontal The use of drilling data to predict drilling rock
stress for each foot drilled. The calculated in-situ strength has developed over a number of years as
stress bound profiles are compared, with good results, drilling models for various types of bits have steadily
with experimental field closure stress data obtained in improved. Although penetration rate models have been
46 tests in four GRI (Gas Research Institute) wells, proposed for polycrystalline diamond compact bits and
SFE (Staged Field Experiment) wells #1, 2, 3, and 4. natural diamond bits, the more traditional tricone roller
bit has received the most attention [5-7] because of its
widespread use. Consequently, penetration rate
INTRODUCTION models of this bit are the most highly-developed, and a
recent article by Winters, et al [8] has demonstrated
In order to properly design and complete high fidelity in predicting penetration rates. In this
effective hydraulic fracturing operations, Voneiff and model, penetration rate of the drill bit is calculated as a
Holditeh [lJ and Holditeh, et al [2] have shown that function of known operating conditions, bit
apriori knowledge of in-situ stress profiles is an coefficients, mud properties and hydraulics, and
extremely important ingredient. Typical methods for ultimate compressive rock strength and ductility. The
estimating such profiles have assumed elastic relationship given in [8] is:

457
2 USE OF DRll..LING PARAMETERS TO PREDICf IN-s:mi STRESS BOUNDS
.1.. = 0'1)2 (aO'~ + d) + -.lL + cpJ.lD (1)
RNWW e NO 1m
where R is the bit penetration rate (ft/hr), (J is the
drilling rock strength (psi), and other symbols are as
defined in the Nomenclature.
Winters' [8] model development is a continuation
of Warren's [7] work. The drilling model proposed by
Warren [7] is given by:
.1.= ~+~ cDpJ.l (2)
R WZN NO 1m
Winters continued development beyond (2) because
predictions for R were low in drilling soft shales and in
situations where underbalanced drilling was
perfonned. By introducing the fourth bit coefficient,
"d", and the rock ductility, "e", or strain at failure, it
was believed that improved prediction of penetration
rates in the softer formations could be obtained. The
coefficient "d" is defined as the bit cone offset and has
units of l/length. This is a very difficult parameter to
measure and was assigned numerical values to yield
the best fit of the mod~l predictions to laboratory data.
The ductility "e" also involves some sources of error.
Values for ductility were determined from laboratory
triaxial tests perfonned on different rock cores.
Ductility values, defined as a function of differential
pressure by Winters [8], were all developed at room
temperature and with a single strain rate. Values for
strain at failure for a rock, selected from a stress-strain
failure curve, are extremely subjective and would be a
strong function of whoever made the selection. Also,
it is believed that the strain at failure is a strong
function of strain rate and temperature [9], which were
not considered in Winters' work. Because the ductility
and cone offset are suspect, in this study it was
decided to employ the model given in (2). Inverting
this for rock strength (J gives:
(3)
Neither Winters [8] nor Warren [7] addressed
"chip hold down effects" on penetration rate modeling,
illustrated in Figure 1, but it is known [10, 11] that this
effect is important To establish the best relationship
for chip hold-down, data from laboratory full scale
drilling tests was used in which bottom hole pressure
varied and other conditions remained constant. A
458
SPFJIADC 25727
reasonable fit to this data for different lithologies is
given by:
(4)
where Pe is the differential pressure, fJPJ is defmed
as the "chip hold down function", and ac, be and Cc are
lithology-dependent constants. Sample values for ac,
be and Cc are given in Table 1, and the results for fJPJ
are given in Figure 2. Details can be found in [12].
Equations (2) and (3) can now be modified to
include a chip hold-down effect, and the final version
for (2) becomes:
Then, solving for rock strength yields:
(6)
For the bits used in the four experimental SFE
wells, as well as other bits, laboratory drilling data
provided by Amoco Production Company, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, was used together with standard regression
techniques to obtain the bit coefficients. Results are
shown in Table 2, and [12] demonstrates an excellent
fit of (5) to the lab data.
A problem arises in using Equations (2), (3), (5)
and (6) when the bit is dull, either because of tooth
wear or missing teeth. No published models were
found to predict penetration rates with dull bits. It
should be empathized that on the SFE wells # 1-4, no
bit had severe tooth damage,and all bits were pulled
"green" (with little or no wear). Accordingly, in the
work reported herein, all bits are assumed to have
insignificant wear.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
ULTIMATE COMPRESSIVE ROCK
STRENGTH AND IN-SITU STRESS
BOUNDS.
The value of (J determined in (1) has been shown
[7] to be the ultimate compressive strength of the rock
under the confming pressures determined by the
annular friction backpressure and hydrostatic pressure
of the drilling fluid, or "mud", and the rock pore
pressure. However, Winters [8] found the ultimate
SPE/IADC 25727 G. HARELAND, L. HOBEROCK
compressive rock strength at a maximum depth of
1500 feet, such that the chip hold-down effect would
be negligible, requiring no modeling. On the other
hand, rock strength and ductility in (1) were modeled
in [8] as a function of confming pressure.
In order to use this "confined" ultimate rock
strength for stress calculations, the "unconfined" rock
strength must be determined, and will be lithology
dependent The required lithology ~formation c~ be:
obtained from [10, 13, 14]. The major problem m thIS
project is to relate the unconfined rock strength .to the
minimum in-situ rock stress. Recall that the ulttmate
rock strength from the drilling model is determined by
failure in compression, while the minimum in-situ
fracturing stress is determined by tensile failure, after
overcoming the appropriate in-situ stresses. It is
known that the tensile strength of rock is very small
compared to the compressive strength [9]. Also,
during a fracturing test, the tensile strength of the rock
is overcome only during the initial fracturing. Mter the
initial fracture, only the minimum principal in-situ
stress must be overcome to maintain an open fracture.
This stress is called the formation closure stress. It is
believed that the tensile strength is also small compared
with the minimum principal in-situ stress [9].
The compressive rock strength is a function of
effective differential pressure for various rock types,
and can be normalized as shown by Winters, et ale [8]
and others [13, 14], with sample results, given in
Figure 3. The effective differential pressure is defined
as: (1) for permeable formations, the difference
between the bottom hole mud pressure and the rock
pore fluid pressure and (2), for impenneable . upon knowledge of rock permeability and pore
fonnations, only the bottom hole mud pressure, usmg
an idealization from Warren [15]. We use his
definition: "Impenneability as used here refers to a
penneability sufficiently low that negligible pressure:
equalization between pores occurs over the ttme penod
in which the rock is being defonned." This is over-
simplified, but perhaps reasonable, because when the
formation is penneable, a "mud cake" at bottom hole
serves as a barrier to higher-pressure mud attempting
to equalize with the pore fluid beneath an "incident"
chip. Accordingly, in this simplified treatment, the net
"differential" pressure acting on an incident chip in
penneable formations is the b<?ttom hole pressure .
minus the pore pressure. For lmpenneable fonnauons,
we assume that substantially reduced pressure (from
overburden pressure) on rock at bottom hole causes.
sufficient increase in rock volume to reduce pore flwd
to zero. Because the rock is impermeable, far-field
pore pressure cannot equalize with the near chip "zero"
pore pressure. Accordingly, the net differential
pressure acting on an incident chip is assumed simply
as the bottom-hole mud pressure. Empirical
459
3
e~pressi(:>nsfor rock strength ~s a f~nction .of effective
differential pressure, Pe , for glven ht?0logles ~an be
obtained by fitting data from [3, 8] WIth equations
given by:
(7 a)
For each lithology, a set of coefficients as and bs can
be determined. For a given lithology the unconfined
rock strength, (Jo, will typically change with well depth
due to rock hardening caused by cementation, grain
size changes, compaction, and other burial factors.
Consider calculating the unconfined rock strength (Jo
from (7a), in which the lithology composition is
known, and the confined rock strength (J has been
determined from (6). Equation (7a) can be re-arranged
to solve for (Jo which yields:
(7b)
Now with (J known, (Jo varies inversely with
effective confining pressure, Pe. It can be seen that if
the rock is assumed "impermeable",(Jo will be small
because Pe will equal the large bottom hole mud
pressure. On the other hand if the rock is assumed
"penneable", (Jo will be larger because Pe will equal the
"smaller" difference between bottom-hole mud
pressure and pore pressure. In effect, this means that
detennination of unconfmed rock strength depends
pressure, in addition to knowledge of confined rock
strength (J and lithology. Pore pressure is difficult to.
obtain, but can be estimated if data from offset wells m
the area is available. In this study we calculate
unconfined rock strength and in-situ stress separately
for both assumptions, namely, permeable and
impenneable rock, and compare the results with field
stress test and lithology data to determine under what
conditions, if any, these assumptions might hold.
Assume that (Jo has been determined for the two
penneability assumptions. Then from (7a) we have:
(8a)
(8b)
where "p" and "i" subscripts denote the penneable and
impenneable assumptions, respectively.
Now with lithology coefficients known, Mohr
circles for the stress state of the rock [9] can be drawn
4 USE OF DRILLING PARAMETERS TO PREDICf IN-SITU STRESS BOUNDS
for any effective confining pressure, as suggested by
Cheatham [16], and shown in Figure 4. By generating
a large number of Mohr circles from (8a) or (8b) at
different confining pressures, a Mohr failure envelope
can be constructed from tangents, as shown in Figure
5. Examples of "permeable" and "impermeable"
failure envelopes are shown in Figure 6. The failure
envelope for a given rock describes compressive
failure as a function of confIning pressure. Because
the failure envelope gives the maximum possible stress
state of the rock, it can be used as an upper bound on
the minimum in-situ principal rock stress. From this
envelope, a new quantity called the "failure angle of
internal friction", p, [9] can be determined for all values
ofPe
The "failure angle of internal friction" is defIned
from soil mechanics tests [17-21]. The angle of
internal friction, illustrated in Figure 7, is the angle
between axis of normal stress and the tangent to the
Mohr failure envelope at a point representing a given
failure stress condition. The internal friction is
considered to be due to the interlocking of the rock
grains and resistance to sliding between the grains.
The "failure angle", a, is also illustrated in Figure 7.
If shear failure takes place according to Mohr's
hypothesis, the plane of failure should run at an angle,
a, relative to the normal stress axis of specimen [9].
The derivation of an expression for p from (8a)
and (8b) is given in [12], and the result is:
Ji = arcsin [ 1.0
1.0 +( 4A
(JQ3s(Pe~ ba - P e-d ba)
in which a is an abritrarily small, non-zero pressure.
This internal friction angle is the primary mechanism to
relate rock strength to in-situ stress. The in-situ ~
effective confinin~ pressure, Pe+a and Pe-a, used in
(9) is given by the difference between the in-situ
horizontal stress O'h and in-situ pore pressure P p:
Pe-is =C\-Pp
Note that this in-~ confining pressure in (10) is not
the same as the drilled ~ confining pressure,
discussed earlier in the paragraph preceding (7a).
Unfortunately, the in-situ horizontal stress O'h needed
in (10) is the principal unknown in our problem.
Accordingly, we use an iterative procedure (in
conjunction with (18) below) to converge to the correct
angle of internal friction, to be discussed following
(19).
SPE/IADC 25727
Now let us examine the calculation of in-situ
stress. Early investigators encountering this problem
were civil engineers, who needed information on
horizontal stresses in the ground to design structures.
Literature studies reveal that "a coefficient of earth at
rest", Ko, has been used by various investigators [17-
21] in a relationship given by:
(11)
in which O'ab is the overburden stress. Relationships
for Ko, determined for rock at failure, were obtained
experimentally by different investigators as follows:
Ko = 1 - sin(Ji) (12) [17]
Ko = 0.9(1 - sin(Ji (13) [18]
Ko = 1 + (2/3)sin(Ji) (14) [19]
Ko = 0.95 - sin(Ji) (15) [20]
This theory from soil mechanics is applicable to rocks,
provided the Mohr failure envelopes have been
determined [22]. These will have been determined
from the "inverted" penetration rate model (6) and the
rock strength pressure relationships (8a) and (8b).
Equations (12) - (15) were developed for
situations in which the pressure in the pores of the rock
was zero. Alkpan [23] compared the results from
] (12)-(15), and showed that differences are small.
) (9) Brooker and Ireland [21] found that results from (12)
matched data from sand, and that data from shales and
clays matched predictions from (13-15) quite well.
This approach, modifIed to account for non-zero pore
pressure, will be applied to data from the four SFE
wells, where the angle of internal friction p can be
determined from (9) for every foot drilled.
A similar concept was proposed by Hubbert and
Willis [22] by relating horizontal to vertical earth
stresses through Poisson's Ratio, v, assuming linear
elastic theory holds for rock formations. The approach
(10) from hydraulic fracturing literature [24] assumes non-
zero pore pressure, and has been used with varying
degrees of success. It is given by:
<\e = ..:L-ave (16)
1-v
CJve =(Job- P p
460
SPE/IADC 25727 G. HARELAND, L. HOBEROCK
From [3], the in-situ closure stress, or horizontal stress
0lI, is obtained by combining the relations in (16) to
obtain:
Oh =~1 O'ob - P p) + P p (17)
-v
Now, assuming the overburden and the pore pressure
are known, the fracture closure pressure crh could be
predicted for given values of Poisson's Ratio. In fact,
(17) has been applied to data from the SFE (Staged
Field Experiment) #1-3 wells, with reasonable results,
where Poisson's Ratio was obtained from electric log
data [3]. The equation was also applied to data from
Gulf of Mexico wells [4] with mixed results, assuming
a constant value, v = 0.25, for sandstone. Now by
comparing (17) with (11), we propose a more general
relationship, given by:
(18)
in which we do not assume rock formations obey
linear elastic theory. Equation (18) shows that the
minimum in-situ stress occurs when Ko equals zero,
such that a minimum value of in-situ horizontal stress
is the pore pressure.
Determination of 0lI in (18) requires knowledge
of p to find Ko. In turn, calculation of p in (9) requires
knowledge of 0lI in (10). Accordingly, we will use an
iterative procedure by assuming a fIrst guess for crh in
(10), calculating p in (11) with the guess to give Ko in
(12) - (15), and then calculating crh in (18). This value
of 0lI is then used in (10), and the process is repeated
until values of crh on successive trials differ by only a
small amount. This is done twice, assuming the
formation is ftrst permeable, and then impermeable,
yielding an upper stress bound for each case.
MIXED LITHOLOGY TREATMENT
When data is gathered from drilled formations
with mixed or "non-pure" lithological components
(i.e., sand and shale mixed together), a combined
effect of the mix should be reflected in the model. This
means that the two independent effects, the chip hold
down function (4) and the function correlating
unconfined and confmed rock strength (7) must be
related to the percent and type of each lithology present
to obtain the combined effect Again, this is an
extremely complicated problem, and no useful studies
are available from the literature. All available data and
physical modeling is for pure lithological components.
461
5
We propose to handle mixed lithologies with an
empirical approach by weighting each of the
component lithology effects by the volumetric ratio 9i
(0 ~ 0i ~ 1.0) of the lithological component present,
and averaging over all components in the mix. The
resulting expressions from (4) and (7a) become:
n
fc = L 9i (Cci + acfe ,,?
b
(19a)
i=1
n
0' = O'Oe L 9i(1 + ilsiPe bli
) (19b)
i =1
We note that values for 9i for every foot drilled are
obtained from "mud logger" data. This data is
collected during the drilling of the well by microscopic
examination of drilled chips collected from the drilling
mud return line. Together with (6), these equations
were applied to the collected drilling data for every foot
of drilled depth for prediction of drilling rock strength.
The procedure is straight forward, but computationally
intense. By substituting the right side of (19a) into (6)
we obtain one equation with one unknown, cr. The
values of crop and croi can be found from (8). For the
SFE wells we assume that the pore pressure, pp is
known. We observed in the discussion followmg (2)
that the effective confming pressure, Pe, or effective
differential pressure, for drilled rock is a complicated
and poorly understood phenomenon. A thorough
understanding and mathematical modeling of this effect
is beyond the scope of this work. In our calculations,
we propose a much simplifIed approximation of this
effect using the relationship:
(20)
where Pe is effective confIning pressure, P p is the pore
pressure, and Ph is the mud column hydrostatic
pressure at bottom hole. Circulating pressure in the
wellbore annulus,Pa, is calculated from a suitable
hydraulics model knowing the drilling fluid flow rate,
annulus geometry, and drilling fluid rheology. In the
work herein, a non-Newtonian Power Law model was
used, and details are given in [12].
For impermeable formations (i.e., shale), P p is
assumed zero in (20), as discussed above, such tliat
the effective conftning pressure equals the bottom hole
pressure. The unconfIned rock strength, computed for
every foot of depth, is the intermediate quantity
sought.
6 USE OF DRilLING PARAMETERS TO PREDICf IN-SITU STRESS BOUNDS
SUMMARY OF STEPS NEEDED TO the upper bound on horizontal stress for
OBTAIN UPPER BOUNDS ON both the penneable and impenneable cases
HORIZONTAL FRACTURE CLOSURE as follows:
STRESS
STEP 1: Employ The modified 3-tenn drilling
penetration rate model with foot-by foot
drilling data to obtain drilling rock strength,
<J, versus depth.( Equation (6
STEP 2: Obtain lithology description versus depth
from mudlogger data.
STEP 3: From the laboratory-detennined, lithology-
dependent correlations of rock strength
with drilled rock confining pressure, use <J
from Step 1 to find unconfmed rock
strength, <Jo using Equation (7a). This
calculation will be a strong function of the
assumed or known penneability of the
drilled rock.
From Step 3, lithology-dependent
STEP 4:
penneable and impenneable rock strengths,
(J and <Ji may now be written as functions
of in-situ confining pressure (using
Equations (8a) and (8b.
STEP 5: From Step 4, construct Mohr failure
envelopes for both the penneable ~d
impenneable cases for each foot drilled.
Confining pressure will be a parameter on
each failure envelope curve. This envelope
gives the stress state of rock at failure.
Hence, it is an upper bound on in-situ rock
stress.
STEP 6: Assume a starting value for in-situ rock
confining pressure. We use 0.65 psi/ft
times depth, minus pore pressure (assumed
known). Enter the failure envelope and
detennine the corresponding angle of
internal friction, p, of the rock at failure.
This is done by applying Equation (9)
STEP 7: From soil mechanics literature, calculate
coefficient Ko. This is done by applying
Equation (12) for sandstone (used when the
lithology is more than 80 percent
sandstone) and Equation (13) for all other
lithologies.
STEP 8: Using known overburden stress,<Job, and
pore pressure, Pp, calculate a trial value for
462
SPE/IADC 25727
<>iu - Pp = KiO(OOb - Pp) - impenneable(2Ib)
where the penneable and impenneable
cases use different values for Ko because
each case has it own failure envelope, and
therefore different angles of internal
friction.
STEP 9: Use the left sides of Equation (2Ia) and
(2Ib) as a second guess for the true in-situ
confming pressure, and repeat Steps 7 and
8 for both cases. Iterate until KpO and KiO
converge. <Jpu and <Jiu are then determined.
STEP 10: Repeat steps 3-9 for each foot of drilled
depth and plot both penneable and
impenneable horizontal stress bounds
versus depth.
STEP 11: Combine the two upper bounds into a
single upper bound by using the penneable
bound for intezvals with more than 90%
sand, and using the impenneable bound
otherwise. If penneability infonnation is
available from electric logs, combine the
two bounds by using the penneable bound
for intezvals having more than .01 md
penneability, and using the impenneable
bound otherwise. .
WELL DATA GATHERING
The initial task for SFE wells #1-4 was to collect
and organize the data necessary for predicting drilling
rock strength. SFE #1,2, and 3 are located in East
Texas and SFE #4 is located in southwestern
Wyonrlng. The required data includes the bit model
numbers and sizes, together with nozzle sizes. The
conditions under which these bits were operated are
needed as input to the rock strength model (6) ~d
include weight on bit (W), rotary speed (N), flUId
flowrate (Q) and rate of penetration (R), all recorded
versus depth. The mudlogger data must be organized
such that the best description of the formation at a
given depth is obtained. This will include primary,
secondary and tertiary lithology descriptions, together
SPE/IADC 25727 G. HARELAND, L. HOBEROCK
with percentages present. Primary lithology means
that lithology detennined by the mudlogger which has
the highest percent by volume at a given depth. The
secondary and tertiary lithologies are those with the
second and third highest lithology percentages by
volume, respectively, from the mudlogger infonnation.
Pore pressure and overburden pressure, as functions
of depth, are also required. To be able to edit and
interpret this data, and to obtain supplementary
information such as mud properties, the daily drilling
reports from the SFE wells were collected and drilling
fluid properties were and organized by depth.
ROCK STRENGTH CALCULATIONS
The calculation of rock strength, confined and
unconfined, for both the penneable and impenneable
cases draws upon both lithology and drilling input
files. The rock strength is calculated from (6), and the
mixed lithologies are treated as described by (l9a) and
(19b). A sample output from SFE #2 ofpenneable
and impenneable confined rock strength versus depth
is shown in Figure 8. For "impenneable" rock
strength, pore pressure was assumed zero in (20),
while for "penneable" rock strength, pore pressures
given in Table 3 were used. The two rock strength
calculations in Figure 8 show the significant effect that
confining pressure has on in-situ rock strength.
Moreover, these figures illustrate that knowledge of in-
situ penneability is necessary in order to calculate rock
strengths, and by implication, in-situ stress bounds.
UPPER IN-SITU STRESS BOUND
CALCULATIONS
The results from the rock strength calculation
were used as input to calculations of "penneable" and
"impenneable" upper bounds on stress. The first step
was to calculate the unconfined rock strength for both
the permeable and the impenneable cases. Then
equations (7a) and (7b) could be applied, using the in-
situ effective pressure given by (10) and mixed
lithologies treated as given by (19a) and (l9b). An
initial guess of 0.65 psi/ft was used for (Jh in (10).
The resulting effective pressure was used in (9) for
both the permeable and impenneable cases to calculate
an angle of internal friction. Now by using (12) if
more than 80 percent of the rock was sandstone, and
(13) for other lithologies, a coefficient for earth at rest, calculated
Ko, could be calculated. The value of Ko for both the
permeable and impenneable cases was employed in
(18) for calculation of <Jit. These values for (Jh were
then used in (10), and the procedure was repeated.
463
7
This procedure was repeated four times, which was
found to yield less than a 1 psi change in (Jh between
the last two iterations. Figure 9 presents a sample of
values of Ko plotted versus depth for the SFE #2 well,
for both the penneable and impenneable assumptions.
COMPARISON OF THE CALCULATED
UPPER BOUNDS ON IN-SITU STRESS TO
RESULTS FROM FIELD IN-SITU STRESS
TESTS
A field stress test is typically perfonned over a
two foot interval in the wellbore. This test is
perfonned by isolating with "packers" a tw~foot
section of wellbore and slowly increasing the fluid
pressure in this section by pumping in more test fluid.
During this procedure, the pressure and the volume
pumped into the isolated section are monitored. Figure
10 illustrates typical behavior. When the formation
breaks down, the test fluid flows into the fonnation,
and a decrease in pressure may be observed on the
pressure versus volume curve. As more fluid is
pumped, the pressure versus volume curve levels out.
The pressure at which this leveling occurs is taken as
the fonnation closure pressure, or closure stress. This
is, however a subjective determination, dependent
upon the person making the judgment.
The data from stress tests perfonned on the SFE
wells [12] were plotted with the calculated in-situ
stress bounds, and Figures 11 and 12 present results
for two intervals of SFE #2. In these figures PP
indicates the pore pressure, SH the horizontal
penneable upper stress bound, and SHI the horizontal
impenneable upper stress bound. For SFE #2, in
which the most stress tests were perfonned, there is
given an upper and a lower limit from the stress test
analysis [12]. Also, for SFE #2 the stress tests
perfonned in penneable formations are separated from
impenneable formations by different symbols. It was
observed [12] for SFE #1-3 that all the stress tests
yielded fracture closure pressures between or on the
impenneable upper bound and the lower bound of pore
pressure. It was also observed for SFE #1-3 that the
closure pressures from stress test performed in
impermeable formations lie on or close to the calculated
impermeable upper in-situ stress bound. The
penneable stress test closure pressures lie below the
calculated permeable upper bounds, but above the pore
pressure [12]. These are encouraging results, since the
permeable and impermeable upper bounds
seem to be the actual upper bounds. It was seen [12]
that the "impermeable" upper bound serves as an upper
bound on in-situ stress for &l rock, whether permeable
8 USE OF DRILLING PARAMETERS TO PREDICf IN-SITU STRESS BOUNDS
or impenneable. Pore pressure, of course, serves as a
lower bound.
It is important to note from this study that in-situ penneable and impenneable cases were combined into
rock appears typically to be close to failure, and one
might conclude that much of the rock in the earth (at
least in the vicinity of the SFE wells # 1-3) is close to
failure. We speculate that as rock is confined at higher
stresses, which is the case with increased depth, it fails intervals were those containing more than 90 percent
and becomes harder due to compaction. The continued
compaction and hardening of earth rock with
increasing depth suggests that deeply buried rock
might frequently be close to failure, and fails more and
more the deeper it is buried. This conclusion is
supported by other evidence. Hunt observed [12] that
in shales and sands there are various indications from
core and log analysis of rock in the earth being close to
or at failure.
For SFE #4, results for one interval are given in
Figure 13. It is seen that stress test results lie above
the upper bounds calculated in our approach, and this
remained true for all intervals. This might have been
expected since SFE #4 is located in a mountain area in
western Wyoming near the "overthrust belt". Active
tectonic stresses are know to exist in this area.
Consider adding a constant tenn, T, to the right side of
(18) to account for horizontal tectonic stress. Then
(18) becomes:
(22) approach would be to devise a technique to determine
It was found in [12] from plots for all intervals similar
to Figure 13 that a value of T given by
T = 1500 psi (23)
would yield an upper bound in (22) such that all the
stress test data fell on or below this new bound. The
value for T in (23) for SFE #4 can be explained partly
by the well being located at the foot of a 700 ft
mountain. An overburden gradient of 1.1 psi/ft
indicates a 770 psi overburden increase due to this
mountain, but this accounts for only part of the needed
1500 psi. Moschovidis [25] observed that values for T
as high as 1250 psi have been seen in central mid-
America fields located in mountain areas.
Accordingly, we suspect that in mountainous areas, a
non-zero value for T in (22) is needed to account for
both tectonics stresses and nearby mountains. The
value for T would then vary for each field.
Unfortunately, as shown by several investigators [26,
27, 28] calculating a value for T is extremely difficult
COMBINATION OF THE TWO UPPER
BOUNDS
464
SPE/IADC 25727
The two upper bounds calculated for the
a single upper bound on stress by treating each foot of
fonnation as either "impenneable" or "penneable"
according to some measure of its penneability. The
best results were obtained by assuming that penneable
sandstone, and that all other intervals were
impenneable. Sample results of this approach are
shown in Figures 14-20. Complete results are given in
[12]. It was found that all stress test data points fell on
or below this combined upper bound. Note that for
SFE #4, a value of 1500 psi for T was included.
Numerous other sandstone percentages were tried as
the "switch value" for penneability, but the value of
90% appeared optimum.
While it could be argued that volumetric
percentage of sandstone is not necessarily a good
measure of penneability, it is probably as good an
indicator as can be obtained from data typically
collected during drilling operations (Le., mud-logger
lithology data). However, if one is willing to wait for
an electric log to be run before this calculation is done,
better penneability infonnation can be obtained.
Improved methods of combining the two upper bounds
using drilling data would be possible if better
knowledge of penneability could be obtained. One
permeabilities directly from drill cuttings at the
wellsite.
SUMMARY
1. A method for obtaining in-situ stress profIle
bounds from drilling data has been proposed and
validated. The method uses a modified tricone bit
drilling model to predict rock strengths, together
with Mohr circles and equations for the coefficient
of earth at rest to obtain bounds on the in-situ rock
stress.
2. Bit coefficients and chip hold-down functions for
the drilling model have been obtained from
available laboratory data, for a limited number of
bits and lithologies.
3. All data necessary to test the proposed procedure
was collected, edited, and organized from SFE
wells #1, 2, 3 and 4.
4. The predicted in-situ stress bounds were compared
to data from actual stress tests perfonned on the
four SFE wells. The calculated "upper" in-situ
stress bound agrees well with the stress test data
for SFE #1-3. The closure pressures from stress
tests perfonned in impenneable fonnations lie close
SPFJIADC 25727 G. HARELAND, L. HOBEROCK
to or on the impermeable upper bound The
closure pressures obtained in the penneable
formations lie below the permeable upper stress
bound.
5. The impermeable upper bound on in-situ stress
serves as an upper bound for all rock, whether
permeable or impermeable. Pore pressure is a
lower bound
6. Upper bounds for in-situ stress on SFE #4 could
be calculated only if an additional additive constant
representing tectonic effects is included in the
calculations. For SFE #4, this constant was 1500
psi.
7. The combined upper bound seems to be a
reasonable approach to obtain a single upper bound
profile on in-situ stress, and agrees well with the
stress test data. Mudlogger data can be used, with
90% sandstone as the switch.
NOMENCLATURE
D Bit Diameter (in)
1m Modified Jet Impact Force (Ibt)
Kio Coefficient of Earth at Rest,
Impermeable Formation (dimensionless)
Ko Coefficient of Earth at Rest
(dimensionless)
Kpo Coefficient of Earth at Rest, Permeable
Formation (dimensionless)
N Bit Rotary Speed (rpm)
Pa Circulating Pressure in Wellbore
Annulus (psi)
Pe Effective Differential or Confining
Pressure (psi)
Pe+L\, In situ Confming Pressures at Small
Pe-L\ Values L\ about a Nominal Confming
Pressure (psi)
Pe-is In-situ Rock Effective Confming
Pressure (psi)
Ph Mud Column Hydrostatic Pressure (psi)
Pp Pore Pressure (psi)
R Penetration Rate (ft/hr)
T Horizontal Tectonic Stress (psi)
W Weight on Bit (lbs)
a, b Bit Coefficients (hr-rpm-in/ft)
ac, aci, Lithology-dependent Coefficients for fc
bc , bei, (chosen such that fc is dimensionless)
Cc, Cci
as, asi, Lithology-dependent Coefficients for
bs, bsi Rock Strength (chosen such that aspebs
is dimensionless)
c Bit Coefficient (hr-Ibf-gallft-Ib-cp-in)
465
9
d Bit Cone Offset (in-I)
e Ductility, or Strain at Failure
(dimensionless)
fc Chip Hold-down Function
(dimensionless)
a Failure Angle of Rock at Failure
(degrees)
Angle of Internal Friction in Rock at
Failure (degrees)
Small Value of Pressure (psi).
Drilling Fluid Plastic Viscosity (Bingham
Plastic Rheology) (cp) .
9i Volumetric Ratio of Ith Lithology
Component Present in Mixed-Lithology
Rock (dimensionless)
p Drilling Fluid Density (Ib/gal)
Confined Rock Strength, or Ultimate
cr
Stress at Rock Failure (psi)
In-situ Horizontal Stress (psi)
Effective In-situ Horizontal Stress (psi)
Unconfmed Rock Strength (psi)
Overburden Stress (psi)
Unconfined Rock Strength for Mixed-
Lithology Rock (psi) ,
Unconfined Rock Strength, Permeable,
Impermeable, respectively, (psi)
Confine Rock Strength, Permeable,
Impermeable, respectively (psi)
Trial Value for Upper Bound on
Minimum Horizontal In-situ Stress,
Permeable, Impermeable Rock,
respectively (psi)
Effective In-situ Vertical Stress (psi)
Poisson's Ratio (dimensionless)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by the Gas Research
Institute, Chicago, ll..; Ercill Hunt ~d Associates,
Houston, TX; and Amoco Producuon Company,
Tulsa, OK. We are especially grateful for assistance
and advice from R. W. Veatch, Z. Maschovidas, and
E. Onyia of Amoco; J. B. Cheatam, Rice University;
and E. Hunt, Ercill Hunt and Associates.
10 USE OF DRILLING PARAMETERS TO PREDICf IN-SITU STRESS BOUNDS
REFERENCES
1. Voneiff, G. W. and Holditeh, S. A., "An
Economic Assessment of Applying Recent
Advances in Fracturing Technology to Six Tight
Gas Formations", SPE 24888,.1992 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Washington, D.C. Oct. 4-7, 1992.
2. Holditch, S. A., Whitehead, W. S., and Rahim,
Z., "Using In-Situ Stress and Permeability
Thickness Profiles to Design the Well
Completion", SPE 21493, SPE Gas Technology
Symposium, Houston, TX, Jan. 23-25, 1991.
3. Holditeh, S.A. and Associates, "Application of
Advanced Geological Petrophysical and
Engineering Technologies to Evaluate and
Improve Gas Recovery from Low Permeability
Sandstone Reservoirs", Vol. 1, GRI report
89/0140, June, 1989.
4. Eaton, B. A., ''Fracture Gradient Prediction and
Its Application in" Oilfield Operations", SPE 2163,
1968 SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, TX,
Sept. 29-Oct. 2, 1968.
5. Eronini, E. I., "Rotary Drill Bit/Rock Model with
Cutter Offset", Journal of Ener&)' Resources
Technolo&)', September, 1983,356-361.
6. Walker, B. H., et. al., "Roller Bit Penetration
Rate Response as a Function of Rock Properties
and Well Depth", SPE 15620, presented at the
61st Annual Fall Technical Conference, New
Orleans, Louisiana, October 5-8, 1986.
7. Warren, T. M., "Penetration Rate Performance of
Roller Cone Bits", SPE Drillinf: En~eerinf:,
March, 1987, 9-18.
8. Winters, W. J., Warren, T. M., and Onyia, E.
C., "Roller Bit Model With Rock Ductility and
Cone Offset", SPE 16696, 1987 SPE Annual
Technical Conference, Dallas, TX, Sept. 27-30,
1987.
9. Closmann, P. J. and Bradley W. B., "Effect of
Temperature on Tensile and Compressive
Strengths and Young's Modulus of Oil Shale"
SPE #6734, presented at SPE-AIME 52nd Annual
Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, Oct 9-12, 1977.
466
SPE/IADC 25727
10. Darley, H. C., "Designing Fast Drilling Fluids",
Journal of Petroleum Technolo&)', April, 1965,
465-470.
11. Cheatham, J. B., "Tooth Penetration Into Dry
Rock at Confming Pressures of 0 to 5000 psi",
Texas Conference on Drilling and Rock
Mechanics, Austin Texas, Jan. 20-21,1965.
12. Hunt, E., Hoberock, L. L., and Hareland, G.,
"Investigation of an In-Situ Stress Profile Model
Using Drilling Parameters", Topical Report,
Sept., 1992, Contract 5091-221-2229, Gas
Research Institute, 8600 West Bryn Mawr,
Chicago, IL, 60631.
13. Carmichael, R. S., e.d. (University of Iowa),
Handbook of Physical Properties of Rock",
Volume II, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida,
1982.
14. Wuerker, R.G., "Annotated Tables of Strength
and Elastic Properties of Rock", AIME paper
663-G, 1956.
15. Warren, T. M. and Smith, M. B., "Bottomhole
Stress Factors Affecting Drilling Rate at Depth",
Journal of Petroleum Technolof:Y. August, 1985,
1523-1533.
16. Cheatham, J. B. Jr., and Gnirk, P. F., "Review
of the Fundamental Aspects of Rock Deformation
and Failure", Rock Mechanics in Oilfield Geolo&)'
Drilling and Production, 1966,3-26.
17. Massarsh, K. R., "New Method for Measurement
of Lateral Earth Pressure in Cohesive Soils", ~
Geotech. 1.. Vol. 12, 1975, pI42-146.
18. Jaky, J., Talajmeckanika (Soil Mechanics in
Hungarian), Budapest, 1944.
19. Fraser, A. M. "The Influence of Stress Ratio on
Compressibility and Pore Pressure in Compacted
Soils", Phd Thesis, London U, 1957.
20. Kezdi, A., Erddrucktheorien <Theories ofEanh
Pressure in German), Springer Verlag, Berlin,
1962.
21. Brooker, E. W. and Ireland, H. 0., "Earth
Pressures at Rest Related to Stress History",
CanadiSl;n Geotech. J., Vol. II, No.l(I-15), 1965.
SPFJIADC 25727 G.HARELAND,L.HOBEROCK 11
22. Hubbert, K. M. and Willis, D. G., Mechanics Of TABLE 2
Hydraulic Fracturing", AIME paper 686-G, 1957. DRILLING MODEL BIT COEFFICIENTS
23. Alkpan, I., "The Empirical Evaluation of the a b a
Coefficient Ko and Kor", Soil Mechanics, Vol
VIT, No. 1(31-40), 1967. Bit Make Bit Size IAOC (hrrpm (hr (hrlbf
Type (in) Code inlft) rpmin gal/ftlb
1ft) cpin)
24. Gidley, J. L., Holditch, S. A., Nierode, D. E.,
and Veatch Jr., R. W., Recent Adyances in Security S33CF 8.75 116 .0206 2.70 .00189
Hydraulic Fracturio&. Chapter 3 by Warpinski et
al,SPE Monograph Vol. 12, Henry L. Doherty Security S82F 8.75 437 .0182 3.07 .00209
Series, Chapter 3, p 59, 1989. Security S84F 8.75 517 .0259 4.21 .00335
25. Moschovidis, Z, Amoco Production Company, Smith F3 8.50 537 .0138 9.77 .00223
Tulsa, OK, Personal Communication, July, 1991.
Security M84F 8.50 617 .0190 13.5 .00326
26. Prats, M., "Effect of Burial History on the Hughes 8.50 624 .0470 13.5 .00331
J55R
Subsurface Horizontal Stresses of Formations
Having Different Material Properties" SfE Security H87F 8.50 737 .0168 9.31 .00335
Journal. Dec., 1981, 658-62.
27. Warpiniski, N. R. and Teufel, L.W., "In-Situ
TABLE 3
Stresses in Low Permeability, Nonmarine PORE PRESSURE GRADIENT SUMMARY FOR
Rocks", Journal of Petroleum Technolo&y. April, THE SFE WELLS
1989, p 405.
28. Warpiniski, N. R. and Teufel, L.W., "A Item Depth Pore Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
Viscoelastic Constructive Model for Determining (ft)
In-Situ Stress Magnitudes from Anelastic Strain
Recovery of Core", paper SPE 8954 presented at
SPE#l 7000 to 7209 .44
the 1986 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct 5-8, 1986. 7209 to 7279 .43
7279 to 7307 .40
TABLE 1 7307 to 7465 .434
7465 to 7487 .295
CHIP HOLD DOWN FUNCTOIN
LI1HOLOGY COEFFICIENTS 7487 to 7503 .48
7503 to 7560 .44
Lithology ac* be* ec* 7560 to 7575 .46
7575 to 7784 .51
Catoosa Shale .00497 .757 .102
7784 to TD* .52
Carthage Limestone .0141 .470 .569 SPE#2 0 to 8000 .46
8000 to 8800 .46 + .04(Depth-8ooo)/looo
*Units on ac, be and Cc chosen such that fc(Pe) is
dimensionless. 8800 to 8900 .44
8900 to 9000 .46 + .04(Depth-8ooo)/I000
9000 to TD* .50
SFE#3 0 to TD* .515
SPE#4 0 to TD* .520

*TD indicates total well depth

467
12 USE OF DRll..LING PARAMETERS TO PREDICf IN-SITU STRESS BOUNDS SPFJIADC 25727

WcIIbcft
WII

CampressM
Streu (psi)

Pel' P e2" Ccafinin. presIlft II faiI_ (psi)

SI S 2 - CaalIned Roct SlzaJlb II Fail_ (pal
Fipre 4. Mohr Cin:les for Two Confinina Pressures
Fipre 1. Chip Hold-Down illustration

SHAlE
o CAR1ltAllIE

-- --: o ,," __ SbeIr

--
-~-_. Streu
o _-0--"
.--- - .. ' (psi)
0.8
'c(P e ) 0--"
r!"/o o
Chip 0.6
Hold DoWll
Function
0.4

0.2- ,

O+---,..-----r----r----,----,----j Pcl Pe2 - ConfiaiD& presIlft II failun: (psi)
o 200 '200
SI S 2 CaalIned Roct SlzaJlh II Fail_ (psi)

FilUre 2. Chip Hold-Down Evaluation Function -Approach C FiIUl'e '0 Sample Mohr Failure Envelope

40 __- - - - - - - - . , - - - - - - - - - ,

-- ....... _.-
-
Legend
m -
a:
~_ 30
0 IIEDfOIlO UME e=.. .A...-::;..~r-~

--
CARTHAGE Y!!!!'_ _- (pII)
o ~TQ.Q!IA ~ __- -

~~. :_=_----_.~_~-_-W'O_O~-_~_O~-_-~_~""7"'L,,/:..-,,/-b.-;.--E-I------
21
20 \--__ 1
."1 .,." B
,,/ ,it""_

i ~'
~~"--"_.'

~ ~1
I

Fipre 6. Sample Failure Eovelope for the Permeable and

2 I 4 I
CONfINING PRESSURE. 1000 PSI
7
10 Impermeable Cases

Fi.ure 3. The Effect of Confininll Pressure on Rock Strenllth

468
SPE/IADC 25727 G. HARELAND,L. HOBEROCK 13

$bar
511aS
(pII) .............._=' BJakdown

Compasiw ..... FormIdoa Oosuft

5_(pli) Pnaun= PIamte
(pII)

'e1" eZ- CoaIialiDa,........,1I tliJllle (pII) Voaae PIImpod (lib)

5 l' 5 2 - ConftIled RocIt 5tre1lP II Foil"", (psi) Pia_ 10. PressUJe Venus Volume for Typical Stress Tesl

, Aa&Je of ill..... rriaioD

II Foilan: IftIle
Pipre 7. Failure Envelope Sbowin. Angle of Internal Friction

,_...ROCK---IDENSlH-----:."'-----------------,
1000

1000

7000
1000
1000
4000
aooo
--------------------------
1000 8M IILOWER-IMPERII W'PeR-PeR1l
fr _
!IJ!__. UPI'ER-IIIPER1l
1000 o LOWER.PERII

_+-----.....------"'T----r----,---.......--y------.....-----! o +----..---,----.---~---.---..,..---..--_l
7100 7100 1000 1100 1200 7100 7100 1000 1100 1200
DEPTH (FT) DEPTH (fT)
Piaure I. Section of Permeable and Impermeable Rock Slrenllb
for SFE 12 (7100-1200 Feel)
Fi,_ II. Seclion of Calculaled In-Silu Slress Bounds and
Sb'eSS TeslS Versus Deplb for Section of
SPE 112 (7110O 8200 Feel)

1 ex-r..... 1MItI1II_ 10000---'"

0.9 1000

0.8 ,
,
.: '
1000

. ,, ..
::! ": . c:.'.M', '...~ .
0.7 7000

0.6
~V! t
. *"~ ~f' r~ f',if;t-La ..~\~.. 'l..~,.t~l'
1000
: : ~ M ~.
0.5
0.4
Iii.. II

'1.1 ~l.
1000
UOO _

I(
0.3 aooo
0.2 1000 8M
!IJ!
fr _
o LOWER-IMPERII
WPERIllPERIl
UI'PER-PERII

0.1 1000 o LOWER-PERil

O-+--.......---.----.----.---r-----,r------.~___l 0+----..---,----.----,----..---,-----.---1
7100 7100 1000 1100 1200 1200 1300 1400 1500 HOO
DEPTH (fT) DEPTH (fT)
Pi,_ 9. Section of Permeable and Impermeable Coefficienl of Pi,_ 12. Sectioa of Calculaled In-Silu SlreSS Bounds and
Earth al Resl for SFE 12 (78001200 Feel) Stress TeslS Venul Deplb for Seclion of
SPE 112 (1200 1600 Feel)
469
 14 USE OF DRll..LING PARAMETERS TO PREDICf IN-SITU STRESS BOUNDS SPE/IADC 25727

10000 .;_~~.i~_==IllII~_~~"'::!... ---, 10000 IHIIU _ _ IICIIG",

1000 1000

1000 1000
7000 7000
.000 8000
1000 1000
4000
aooo
4000

3000
--------------------------
II" 1MPERMEA8LE-lIAH 0 PERMEABLe-REST
1000
!I.'!__.__ a IMPERMEABlJ:-REIT 2000 COMB a LOWER-IMPERM o LOWER-PERM
1000 ~-------
o PERMEABlJ:-lIAH

o+----..--r---.---,----,-----,---.---j
1000 ~- - - -- UPPER-'MPERM UPPERPERM

7700 7800 7800 8000 8100

:2io:-=0--.---.'ao-o-----..--u,oro--.---.-50'O---.-----J.80C
DEPnt(FT)
Pi,UIe 13. Seclion of Calculaled In-Situ Slress Bounds and DEPTH (FT)
Stress Tesls Venus Deplh for Section of
Pi,UIe 16. Seclion of Combined 'n-Sita Upper Siress Boands
SFI! N (1100 - 8100 Feel)
with 90' Sand Permeability Swilch for SFE '2
(8200 - 8600 Feet)
10000 -i1HllU:.::..=.:.:.::...~
....==IllII=-==
. ..
=_ ~ ..,
1000 - - -...
1000
7000
1000
1000
7000
5000
8000
4000 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1000
r-
aooo 4000

2000 COMB o PERMl!ABlJ: 3000

1000
"'---_. IMPERMEABlJ:
1000 COMB
~_ _ _ _ _
a LOWER-'MPERM
UPPER-IMPERM
0
0
LOWERoPERM
UPPER-PERM
1000
0
7550 7850 7750 7850
DEPTH(FT) 1500 1800 1700 81(
Pi.... 14. Section of Combined In-Slta Upper Streu Bounds DEPTH (FT)
wilh ~ Sand Permeability Switch for SFE II
Pi,Ule 11. Section of Combined In-Sita Upper Siress Bound.
(1S5O - 1850 Feet)
with 90' Sand Permeability Swilch for SFE '2
(9400 - 9800 Feet)
10000 ,1HIIU_-'-._I-~..:.IllII~-:..:..:...
~ --,
10000..;1HIIU:::::::..:II:::lNlII=:.:...
:=;-::::.;...
::.:::-----------------,

1000 1000

1000 1000

7000 7000

8000 8000
1000
I ~
8000
4000 4000
------------------~-------
1000 1000

1000 COMB a LOWER-IMPERM 0 LOWERoPERM 1000 COMB a LOWER-IMPERM 0 LOWERoPERM

~ _ _ _ _ _ UPPER-IMPERM UPPER-PERM ~ ._ _ UPPER-IMPERM UPPER-PERM
1000 1000

O+------..---r---r----r--..-----~---.--_; O+------..--.,.---,,.....---,---...---,----r-----j
7100 7800 .000 .100 1200 8.00 1100 10000 10100 102C
DEP1lf (FT) DEPTH(FT)
Pi,UIe IS. Section of Combined In-Sita Upper Stress Boands Pi.are II. Section of Combined In-Sita Upper Stress Bounds
willi ~ Sand Permeability Switch for SFE '2 with 90.. Sand Permeabllily Swilch for SFF. '2
(1800 8200 Feel) (9800 - 10200 Feet)
470
SPE/IA1>C 25727 G. HARELAND, L. HOBEROCK 15

IHIIU_.......
10000 -r------~....:------------------_,

toDD
1000

7000

1000

1000 - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4000

3000

2000
COMB ~ _ _ _ _ _ IMPERMEABLE
1000

0+------r--,-----,--,-----,--,-----,--..,----.,,----1
8500 8520 8540 8580 8580 8800
DEPTH (FT)
Figure 19. Section of Combined In-Situ Upper Stress Bounds
with 90% Sand Permeability Switch for SFE #3
(9500 - 9600 Feet)

IHIIU_.......
10000.-------=-------------------..,

1000

1000

7000

1000

1000
~" -------------------------_.
3000

2000 COMB 'MPERMEABLE-BAH PERMEABLE-BAH

eP_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 'MPERMEABLE-REST 0 PERMEABLE-REST
1000
o +---"""T"""----r---r-----y------r---rl---~---_t
7700 7800 7800 8000 8100
DEPTH (FT)
Fiaure 20. Section of Combined In-Situ Upper Stress Bounds
with 90% Sand Permeability Switch for SFE #4
with T = 1500 psi (7700 - 8100 Feet)

471