Determination of the State of Stress With

Applications to Wellbore Stability and

Fracture Flow in Reservoirs
Mark Zoback
Professor of Geophysics
Stanford University

1
 Geomechanics Through the Life of a Field

E xploration A ppraisal D evelopment H arvest A bandonment

P
r Wellbore Stability
o Pore Pressure Prediction
Fault Seal/ Fracture Permeability
d
u Sand Production Prediction
c Compaction
t Casing Shear
i Subsidence
Coupled Reservoir Simulation
o
Fracture Stimulation/ Refrac
n Depletion

Geomechanical Model
Time
 Geomechanics Through the Life of a Field

E xploration A ppraisal D evelopment H arvest A bandonment

P
r Wellbore Stability
o Pore Pressure Prediction
Fault Seal/ Fracture Permeability
d
u Sand Production Prediction
c Compaction
t Casing Shear
i Subsidence
Coupled Reservoir Simulation
o
Fracture Stimulation/ Refrac
n Depletion

Geomechanical Model
Time
Middle East and
Caspian Sea

GMI
Dubai

LEGEND
Wellbore Stability
Fracture Permeability
Fault Seal
Pore Pressure
Sand Production
Stress Direction

Last Update:
1/10/09
 Topics

How to Determine the State of Stress in

Oil and Gas Wells (and How Not To)
Wellbore Stability Applications
Fluid Flow in Fractured Reservoirs

3D/4D Geomechanics
 Get the Stress Right!
Principal Stresses at Depth
Sv Overburden
SHmax Maximum horizontal
Sv principal stress
Shmin Minimum horizontal
principal stress

Additional Components of a
Geomechanical Model
UCS Pp Pore Pressure
Pp
UCS Rock Strength (from logs)
Fractures and Faults (from Image
Shmin SHmax Logs, Seismic, etc.)

7
Developing a Comprehensive Geomechanical Model

Parameter Data
z0

Vertical stress Sv (z0 ) = g dz

0
Least principal
stress Shmin LOT, XLOT, minifrac
Max. Horizontal
Stress SHmax magnitude modeling
wellbore failures
Stress
Orientation Orientation of Wellbore failures
Pore pressure Pp Measure, sonic, seismic
Rock Strength Lab, Logs, Modeling well failure
Faults/Bedding Wellbore Imaging
Planes
 Compressional and Tensile Wellbore Failures

Well A

UBI Well A FMI Well B

Borehole Wall Stresses for a Particular Trajectory
 Breakouts in Deviated Wells
SHmax
azimuth
145
55/235

100/280
vertical well
tangential
stress

100/280

well inclined 70 at
an azimuth of 280
Stereo Plot for Deviated Wells

Easy and functional display

of wellbore stability or risk
for wells of any orientation.
Wellbore Failure Orientation in Deviated Wells
Pre-Salt, Brazil - SHMax Azimuth?
Wellbore Failures South America
 Geomechanics Through the Life of a Field

E xploration A ppraisal D evelopment H arvest A bandonment

P
r Wellbore Stability
o Pore Pressure Prediction
Fault Seal/ Fracture Permeability
d
u Sand Production Prediction
c Compaction
t Casing Shear
i Subsidence
Coupled Reservoir Simulation
o
Fracture Stimulation/ Refrac
n Depletion

Geomechanical Model
Time
Similar Diagrams for Nahr Umr Shale
 Dont Calculate Stress From Poissons Ratio

Assumptions:
Sv applied instantaneously
No other sources of stress exist
No horizontal strain (Bilateral
Constraint)
Material is elastic, homogeneous
and isotropic from the time Sv is
applied to the present
SH - Pp ~ 1
(Sv - Pp)
Lateral Constraint
(horizontal strain = zero)
However...
Observations indicate that the
horizontal stresses are not equal,
Model doesn't explain SH > Sh > Sv,
Global tectonic activity indicates that
the crust is not tectonically relaxed
Utilizing an Effective
Poissons Ratio and
Adding Tectonic Stress
Does Not Make Model
Correct
Dont Calculate Stress from Poissons Ratio!
 Topics

How to Determine the State of Stress in

Oil and Gas Wells (and How Not To)
Wellbore Stability Applications
Fluid Flow in Fractured Reservoirs

3D/4D Geomechanics
The Key to Wellbore Stability is Controlling the
Width of Failure Zones
Design for Variations in Strength
Increase Mud Weight as Needed
 Frac Gradient

Collapse
Pressure
Pore Pressure
 Tendency for Breakout Initiation for
Different Stress Regimes

3 km Depth, Hydrostatic Pp
 Mud Weight Needed to Maintain 30 Breakouts
Normal Strike-Slip Reverse

Stress States Same as Previous Slide

Medium Strong Rock UCS = 7250 psi
Example - Stability of Uncased Multi-Laterals

Key Questions:
Is it possible to leave short sections
(~15), of laterals uncased near the
parent well?
Will such intervals be stable as the
reservoir is produced?
Could producing too fast
exacerbate sand production and
stability problems?
 Calibrated Rock Strength Log

C o, K psi
0 5 10 15 20
9500

Triaxial tests in laboratory

9600
Relate strength to P-wave
modulus
9700
Use T and density to compute
UCS
9800
Caution - should not be used in
hydrocarbon zones
9900

10000
 Wellbore Stability Plot

Less stable

Required mud weight

Required Strength
Breakout Width W E

More stable
S
S H m ax
Lower hemisphere stereographic projection of well orientation
 Previously Unknown
Drilling Experience
M O NO PO D

K-2 6 -9
80
0'

0'
70
-9
0'
60
-9
in g
B ay
Fa
u lt

-9
00
0'
Well X
'
00
ad

-92

'
00
Tr

0'
-94

-960

0'
-980

-9800'
Drilled at 335 degrees,
KING SALMON

-9
60
0'
G-1 5 RD -9
-9600'

40
0'
-9400'

maximum deviation 108 degrees.

-94
00
'
-9200'

-96 00'
00
' -92
-920

0'
0'

60
-9

Successfully drilled and

0'
-900
-9600'

-940

M-3 1
0'

0'
-940

0'
-920

completed
0'

GRAYLING
-900
00'
-94

0'
20
-9

STEELHEAD

-920
0'
-940

0'
-920
0'
-9
60
0'

0'
-940

Well Y
0'
60
-9

0'
80
-9

Drilled at 31 degrees,
0'
20
-9

DOLLY VARDEN

deviation 88 degrees.
-9
40
0'

-9
60
-9400'

0'
0'
-960

0'
-980

Wellbore collapsed in
open-hole section
 Moderate Drawdown / Damage

Decreased pressure drop

Damage zone less

important

Pore pressure distribution during drawdown

Moderate Drawdown / No Damage

Smaller pressure drop

10000

Uniaxial compressive strength [psi]

Lower stress at wellbore
8000

6000
Relatively more stable

4000 Total BOs ~ 100o

2000

0
Rapid Drawdown / Damage

Large pressure drop near

the well
Exacerbated by damage
zone

Pore pressure distribution

during drawdown
 Rapid Drawdown / Damage

Large pressure drop

10000
Increased stress at wellbore

Uniaxial compressive strength [psi]

8000

Unstable well
6000

Total BOs > 180o

4000

2000

Strength required to prevent failure is too high excessive breakouts

 Example 2
Severe wellbore instabilities in
the Fortune Bay shale led to
abandonment of original PG-2 Side track
well and required drilling a side track
The side track was completed abandoned
successfully by switching to oil

PG-2
based mud and raising the mud
weight to 12 ppg in the Fortune
Bay shale.

Objective for future wells

Optimization of wellbore stability
in deviated and horizontal wells
Feasibility of drilling highly
deviated wells with a maximum
mud weight of ~11.5 ppg
 Orientation of SHmax

Hibernia
World stress map data
superimposed with mean SHmax
Newfoundland orientation (red arrow) derived from
St. Johns 4-arm caliper and UBI breakout
analysis in vertical wells of the
Terra Nova field

Terra Nova
Pore Pressure and Stress in the Terra Nova Field

Pressure/Stress [bar]
0 200 400 600 800 1000
0

Pp[bara]
Pp water wet sand
500 Pp[bara]
Pp oil wet sand
LOT (C-09)
Hydrostatic
Hydrost. [bara]
SvOverburden
[bara]
1000
Test
FIT Pres.[bara]
LOT
X-LOT
1500
SSTVD [m]

2000

2500
1.117
Sv = 0.0848*SSTVD

3000
X-LOT (GIG-3)
X-LOT (PG-2)

3500

Pp = 0.098*SSTV LOT (C-23)

4000
Shmin = -15.889 + 0.19416*SSTVD
 Breakouts from UBI log in PG-2

Azimuth [deg]

Fortune
0 90 180 270 360

Shale

3800
Total breakout

Bay
no data
Low er FBS

3850 E sand
ED shale
length: 32 m
Dc sand
3900

Db shale
Da sand

D congl.
Mean breakout
3950
UC2 sand
width: 40 (11)
LC2 shale

Jeanne dArc
Reservoir
4000
LC2 sand

C2C1 shale
4050
C1 sand

4100
C1B shale

4150
B sand

B Rank shale
no data Rankin Mbr.
4200
Breakout
Azimuth
azimuth
(deg)
Breakout
Width (deg)
width
Breakouts from UBI log in PG-2

Lc2 shale within the

W E
Jeanne dArc reservoir

Isotropic compressive failure

C1 sand within the

Jeanne dArc reservoir
Breakouts from EMS 6-arm caliper log in PG-2
Jeanne dArc reservoir Fortune Bay shale

Isotropic failure Anisotropic failure

The difference in failure behavior between the Fortune Bay shale

and the Jeanne dArc reservoir is similar to the UBI images
Breakouts from UBI log in PG-2

Lowermost Fortune Bay shale

Anisotropic compressive failure

Modeling anisotropic breakouts in the Fortune Bay shale
with the given in situ stress state

Anisotropic failure Anisotropic failure

Bedding plane properties:
dip = 8 (from core data)
Azi = 23 (from core data)
S0 = 4.8 MPa (from lab data)
s = 0.21 (from lab data)
MW = 10.5 ppg MW = 12 ppg Result:
The in situ stress tensor
Isotropic failure Observed
derived in this study and the
bedding plane properties
measured in the lab can
account for the anisotropic
breakouts seen in the Fortune
Bay shale
 Predicting stability in the
Fortune Bay shale for well GIG-3
C0 = 55 MPa

wBO = 75 MW = 12 ppg

Assuming anisotropic behavior

There exists a steep stability gradient for deviations between 25 and 45
Well PG-2 is oriented less favorably in the current stress field
Well GIG-3 is oriented more favorably in the current stress field
Severe stability problems can be avoided for GIG-3 with a maximum
mud weight of 11.5 ppg if deviation < 30
 Business impact
Petro-Canada successfully drilled well
GIG-3 through the Fortune Bay Shale successful
by limiting deviation to 27 and
mud weights to 10.5 ppg 11 ppg
abandoned
Petro-Canada avoided costly stability

PG-2
problems by following GMIs
recommendations for this well

successful
GI
G-
3

Graben structure at base of reservoir

 Topics

How to Determine the State of Stress in

Oil and Gas Wells (and How Not To)
Wellbore Stability Applications
Fluid Flow in Fractured Reservoirs

3D/4D Geomechanics
Characterizing Hydraulically-Permeable
Fractures and Faults

But which ones control fluid flow and

how do we take advantage of this?
Hydraulically Conductive Fractures are Shear Faults
Active (or Activated) in the Current Stress Field

From Townend and

Zoback (2001)
Active Faults Maintain Permeability Through Time

Faulting is key to maintaining permeability

 Temperature Anomalies and
Permeable Faults in the KTB Borehole

Zoback and Townend (2001)

Ito and Zoback (2000)

 Mechanical Lithosphere

Zoback, Townend and Grollimund (2002)

High Stress, Critically-Stressed Crust

Ductile Lower Crust and Upper Mantle

Is This Model Quantitatively Correct?

Broad-Scale Stresses and Distributed Seismicity
Gas Leakage Along Faults
Active Strike-Slip Faults Conduct Fluids
 ~5cm/yr

Examples -Critically-Stressed
Faults in Damage Zones
Fault Damage Zones and Directional Permeability

Damage
zone
Strong Directional Flow Near Dormant Normal Faults

Preferential flow along the faults from

interference and tracer test
 Current Strike-Slip Stress State

Stratigraphic
Permeability Model

Paul, Zoback and Hennings (2009)

 Need For a Better Model to Match Reservoir Flow

Permeability Model Does Not Match

Pressure Data in
Producers or Injectors
 No Wells Directly in Damage Zones
Dynamic Rupture Propagation to Calculate Damage Zones
Depth ~2700m

0 2000 N
m
Origin point of rupture

8
x 10
Damage Intensity 1 .5
sxx
Damage zone sxy
syy
1 szy
szx

s t r e s s m a g n it u d e ( P a )
Rock strength szz

Horizontal Plane 0 .5 S1
S2
S3
oct shear
0 to ta l o c t s h e a r

Fault Plane
-0 .5

Cross Section View Along -1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Strike of Normal Fault d is t a n c e f r o m r u p t u r e f r o n t ( m )
 Calculated Damage Zone Width

At reservoir depths from

100 simulations:
Simulation 1 Mean of DZ width ~50-90m

Simulation 2

Process Zone Width, m

Simulation 3

Fault Zone Length, m

Simulation 4 Vermilye and Scholz (1998)

2km
 Utilizing the Dynamic
Rupture Model to
Predict Width of
Damage Zone and
Anisotropic Permeability
 Improved
Damage Zone Model Matches Model
Pressure Data in
Producers and Injectors
Base
Model
 Breakout Orientation Fluctuations Due to Fault Slip

Shamir and Zoback (1992)

 Geomechanics Through the Life of a Field

E xploration A ppraisal D evelopment H arvest A bandonment

P
r Wellbore Stability
o Pore Pressure Prediction
Fault Seal/ Fracture Permeability
d
u Sand Production Prediction
c Compaction
t Casing Shear
i Subsidence
Coupled Reservoir Simulation
o
Fracture Stimulation/ Refrac
n Depletion

Geomechanical Model
Time