IPTC 15508

Evaluation of Stress Anisotropy of the Formation by Utilizing Dipole Shear

Sonic Imager (DSI*), Formation Micro Imager (FMI*) and Density Log -
A Case Study on Kanawara Field, South Cambay Basin, India
Subrahmanyam Pachineelam*, Bharat Sastry Paluri, Anand Siva Kumar Mudigonda, Heramec Limited, &
N.D.J Rao, Alkor Technologies Limited, India
Copyright 2011, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Bangkok, Thailand, 7–9 February 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme 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 Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the Int ernational Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is re stricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435

Abstract

Knowledge on Stress anisotropy of the formation is vital to understand the stress direction and magnitude. A stress direction
allows well bore stability analysis for safe and cost effective drilling in a challenging environment. Well bore stability
analysis showed a large tectonic imbalance between minimum and maximum horizontal stress. As a result, wells drilled in
the direction of maximum horizontal stress will have a significant increase in wellbore stability problems compared to those
drilled in the direction of minimum horizontal stress. Perforations to be oriented consistent with stress direction to optimize
the production and minimize sanding problems. Identification of anisotropy due to fractures leads to enhanced production
and maximize the oil recovery from the hydraulic fracturing job.

Well bore stability analysis (WBS) of Kanawara field can be performed by define the rock properties such as Young’s
modulus, Shear modulus, Poisson’s ratio and elastic properties like unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and friction
angle of the formation. WBS is a numerical representation of rock mechanical properties, in-situ stresses and pore pressure
for a specific stratigraphic section in a field. Compressional slowness (DTCO) and shear slowness (DTSM) along with
density (RHOB) log are basic wireline measurements used in determining formation mechanical properties in the vicinity of
well #1.

The geomechanical study was conducted by utilizing data from all domains, which included wireline data mainly Dipole
sonic (DSI*), FMI* and Density logs. Drilling and completion reports, mud logs, MDT tests, minifracture tests, injectivity
tests and LOT values are used for calibration purposes.

* Mark of Schlumberger
2 IPTC 15508

Introduction

The Kanawara field is located in Tarapur tectonic block in South Cambay

basin, India (Figure 1). The Kanawara structure as a whole is rising towards
north and northwest and having a major depression towards east and
southeast where we can expect sediments of the order of 4 – 5 kms with
organic rich black Cambay shales. The Middle Eocene pay (EP-IV U&L) is
proved to be prolific oil/gas producing zone in this area. The Inplace
reserves envisaged in Kanawara, suggests that the field may require further
development wells to obtain the optimum production.

Present paper emphasized on pore and fracture pressure study and a

wellbore stability analysis to delineate the mechanisms of wellbore
instability in the vicinity of well #1. The well #1 is located in Kanawara
field, drilled up to 1800m with object to produce EP-IV pay sands.

Figure 1: Location map of Kanawara Field

DSI (Dipole Shear Sonic Imager)

Well #1
Averaged 'P' & 'S' Wave Plot

1000
DSI* (Dipole Shear Sonic Imager) tool is a multi receiver tool with a

100
400
linear array of eight receiver stations, a monopole transmitter and two
500
orthogonal dipole transmitters (Harrison et al., 1990, Brie et al., 1997). At
each receiver station is a pair of orthogonal dipole receivers that form two 600

arrays, each oriented in the direction of one of the dipole transmitters. 700

800

DSI can determine the shear-wave velocity in all types of formations. It is 900

used to provide the borehole compressional, shear and Reyleigh 1000

slownesses. (Slowness is the reciprocal of velocity and corresponds to the 1100

interval transit time measured by standard sonic tools). The configuration 1200
of the DSI also allows recording of crossline dipole waveforms. These
1300
modes can be used to estimate shear-wave splitting caused by preferred
mineral and/or structural orientations in consolidated formations. By 1400

utilizing Dipole sonic (DSI*), Formation micro imagery (FMI*) and 1500

density logs, an attempt was made to evaluate the pore pressure and a 1600

wellbore stability analysis to delineate the mechanisms of wellbore 1700

instability in the vicinity of Well #1. 1800

Averaged DTSM Averaged DTST Averaged DTCO
DTCO Vs Depth DTSM Vs Depth DTST Vs Depth

Figure 2: Averaged “P” “S” and raighly waves

Plot, recoded at Well #1

Borehole breakouts

Borehole breakouts are stress-induced enlargements of the wellbore cross-section. It may develop if the drilling mud weight
is insufficient to support the stress at the borehole wall. When a wellbore is drilled, the material removed from the subsurface
is no longer supporting the surrounding rock. As a result, the stresses become concentrated in the surrounding rock (i.e. the
wellbore wall). Borehole breakout occurs when the stresses around the borehole exceed that required to cause compressive
failure of the borehole wall (Zoback et al., 1985; Bell, 1990). Borehole walls may experience time-dependent shear failures.
The low compressive strength of the formation especially mud rocks can cause the borehole breakouts.
IPTC 15508 3

The stress concentration around a vertical borehole is greatest in the

direction of the minimum horizontal stress (Shmin). Hence, a typical borehole
breakouts and tensile fracturing in a vertical well based on stress orientation.
Maximum horizontal stress (SHmax) is perpendicular to borehole breakouts
while minimum horizontal stress Shmin is parallel to borehole breakouts
(Figure 3).

Figure: 3: Relation between well borehole

break outs and stress direction.

Work flow

A simplified workflow of this process is to distinguish intrinsic anisotropy from stress-induced anisotropy by utilizing Dipole
sonic shear sonic imager (DSI*). After the identification of stress-induced anisotropy, the fast-shear direction can be
identified at the maximum stress direction in the plane perpendicular to the borehole. If the borehole is vertical, then the fast
shear direction is the maximum horizontal stress direction. In order to calibrate the results utilized available pressure
measurements, identified shear and tensile well bore break outs from FMI* and caliper logs.

Pore Pressure

Pore pressure is a key parameter within a WBS. Apart from direct measurements from MDT tests, pore pressure can be
determined in shaly intervals using several log-based methods. The Eaton method is based on the premise that when acoustic
travel time or resistivity values of ‘clean’ shales are read directly from logs and plotted. A deviation of the log values from
this normal trend line is indicative of abnormal pore pressure (Eaton, 1975).

The Eaton model is successfully used for the pore pressure prediction at well #1 in Kanawara field. The calibrated pore
pressures at the well locations shows excellent match with the MDT. The fracture gradient was calibrated using the LOT
data. At the well #1 location the top pay units at around 1350 m are normal pressured. However the sand units below are
mostly overpressured as are the surrounding shales.

Figure 4: Pore pressure detection by Eaton’s Method at Well #1

4 IPTC 15508

Rock Properties

Poisson ratio can be calculated from the Compressional- and shear-wave velocity (DTCO and DTSM respectively) by sonic
measurement (Gassmann, 1951), Where ν is Poisson’s ratio.

In general, the Poisson's ratio decreases with decreasing differential pressure (confining minus pore pressure). This means
that in gas-saturated rocks, Poisson’s ratio decreases with increasing pore pressure. This effect can be used as a new tool for
overpressure detection from seismic, cross-well, sonic logs and measurements ahead of the drill bit. The physical limit for
Poisson’s ratio should be within zero to 0.5. Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) is one of the key rock strength
parameters for wellbore stability analysis. Normally, UCS can be determined with a correlation established from core lab test
data. However, there is no core lab test data available for this study. Therefore, the UCS was determined by the offset well
core data, which had been applied in Kanawara field (Figure 4).

Well #1
Poisson's Ratio
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
400

600 Poisson's Ratio from;

(V p2 - 2V s 2)/2(V p2 - Vs 2)

800
D ep th (m M D B R T )

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Poisson's Ratio Modelled Poisson's Ratio

Figure 4: Calculated Poisson’s Ratio at well #1 by Eaton’s Method

Elastic Properties

The Dynamic elastic properties can be determined directly with the following equations (Gassmann, 1951):

Where Gdyn is dynamic shear modulus in Mpsi, Kdyn is dynamic bulk modulus in Mpsi, RHOB is in g/cc, and
Compressional wave (DTCO), shear wave (DTSM) are both in µs/ft respectively. The elastic properties determined directly
from the above equations at the location well #1 (Figure 5).
IPTC 15508 5

Figure 5: Rock elastic properties at Well #1

Stress direction & Magnitude

Oriented measurements such as image logs (FMI*), sonic logs (DSI*) and oriented calipers are available for direct derivation
of the stress direction of the formation. However, the stress direction can also be roughly inferred from local geological
setting (Figure 6)

Figure 6: Normal fault stress regime of vicinity of well #1, Red arrow shows the direction of Maximum horizontal Stress.

Local geological settings shows most of the normal faults in this region have strike along the NW-SE direction. In general the
strike of the normal fault corresponds to the maximum horizontal stress direction. With this limited information, it is inferred
that the minimum horizontal stress azimuth will be along NE direction.

Horizontal Stress Magnitude:

Determination of accurate horizontal stress magnitudes is one of the most difficult stages in well bore stability analysis. It
cannot be directly measured from log measurements without some modeling. Lack of calibration points can be a significant
limitation for this study. To reduce this uncertainty, the following approach was adopted.
6 IPTC 15508

One of the basic components of in situ stress state is the minimum horizontal stress σh. It is derived primarily from
gravitational loading in the rock (i.e., the overburden stress), therefore, a simple gravitational compaction model can be used
to provide an initial estimate of σh (Fjaer et al., 1992).

The total lateral restraint is effectively achieved by the generation of horizontal stresses to the formations.

From simple linear elastic theory,

Where, σh’, σH’ and σV’ are the effective stresses, k is the ratio of effective horizontal stress to effective vertical stress, and u
is Poisson’s ratio. Effective stress is used here since we are dealing with porous formation with fluid in the pore space. The
relationship of total and effective stress can be written (Biot and Willis, 1956) as:

Where, σh’ and σh are the effective and total horizontal stress respectively, a is Biot elastic constant and Pp is pore pressure.

Minimum Horizontal Stress (σh) Magnitude Well #1

Minimum Horizontal Stress
Magnitude (psi)
The poro-elastic model was used to make the initial estimation of
minimum horizontal stress magnitude for the well #1. Input data, 400
0 1000 2000 3000 4000

including static Young’s modulus, static Poison’s ratio, pore pressure

500 Poro-elas tic
and overburden stress. The direct measurement of minimum horizontal model
stress magnitude can be deduced from the imagery logs (Figure 7). 600

700

800

Maximum Horizontal Stress (σH) Magnitude 900

Depth (m MDBRT)

1000
Unlike minimum horizontal stress (σh), direct measurement of 1100
maximum horizontal stress (σH) is not possible. However, it can be
1200
inferred through modeling similar to that for σh), but using additional
constraints from wellbore failure as indicated by calliper logs or 1300

imagery logs. 1400

1500

Shear failure (wellbore breakout due to low mud weight) is the most 1600
common occurrence, although drilling induced fracture (hydraulic 1700
fracture due to high mud weight and/or thermal effects) can also be
used to estimate the Maximum horizontal stress (σH).
1800

Minimum horizontal stress magnitude (psi)

Figure 7: Minimum horizontal stress magnitude

Wellbore Stability Analysis Results

Wellbore stability analysis has been conducted for well #1. Figures 10 through 12 illustrate the Well bore stability analysis
for various section of the well. In the wellbore stability analysis Figure 10 displays geostresses including pore pressure,
minimum horizontal stress (σh), maximum horizontal stress (σH), overburden stress (σV) and direction of minimum horizontal
stress.

Maximum Horizontal Stress (σH) Magnitude

Unlike minimum horizontal stress (σh), direct measurement of maximum horizontal stress (σH) is not possible. However, it
can be inferred through modeling similar to that for σh), but using additional constraints from wellbore failure as indicated by
calliper logs or imagery logs.
IPTC 15508 7

Shear failure (wellbore breakout due to low mud weight) is the most common occurrence, although drilling induced fracture
(hydraulic fracture due to high mud weight and/or thermal effects) can also be used to estimate (σH).

Wellbore Stability Analysis Results

Wellbore stability analysis has been conducted for well #1. Figure 10 displays geostresses including pore pressure, minimum
horizontal stress (σh), maximum horizontal stress (σH), overburden stress (σV) and direction of minimum horizontal stress.
The Figure 11 shows that minimum horizontal stress, and the formation breakdown pressure. Caliper log of well #1
indicating that typical tensile break outs are due to failed to maintain proper mud policy in the this well.

Well #1
Well bore stability Analysis
Pressure (psi)

0 2000 4000 6000

400

Based on Eaton
Method
600

800
Depth (m MDBRT)

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800
Vertical Stress (psi)
Ef fective stress (psi)
Pore pressure (psi)
Fracture pressure (psi)
Minimum horizontal stress magnitude (psi)

Figure 10: Well bore stability analysis plot. Figure 11: Comparison of wellbore Stability results
with the caliper log of well #1

Borehole breakout analysis from four-arm caliper logs

Wellbore breakouts are an important indicator of horizontal stress orientation. Four-arm caliper tools commonly run to
estimate the volume of cement required for casing. However, unprocessed oriented four-arm caliper logs can also be used to
interpret borehole breakouts.
8 IPTC 15508

Figure 12: Four-arm caliper log plot displaying Figure 13: Proposed Safe mud weight window at
Kanawara field.

Caliper one (C1) locks into breakout zone from 655-790m, where the caliper (C2) locks into gauged hole. Breakout zones are
oriented approximately NE - SW direction, suggest a Sh direction (Figure 12).

Fullbore Formation MicroImager (FMI*)

The borehole images (FMI*) can provides the high-resolution picture of the
wellbore wall based on resistivity contrasts that allows the direct or indirect
information about In-situ stress of the formation. In-situ stress acting on the
borehole wall may cause damage in the formation. The orientation of fractures
from the image logs may be used to identify the stress field orientation. The
orientation of induced fracturing direction may be used to identify the drainage of
reservoir.

Open fractures or well bore breakouts are typically appears on resistivity image
logs as a conductive zones separated by 180º (i.e. observed on opposite sides of the
borehole). Because they become infiltrated by drilling mud and, thus, appear on
resistivity image logs as pairs of narrow, well defined conductive features.

Figure 14: Indications of stress in

Formation MicroImager (FMI*)
IPTC 15508 9

Interpretation of In-Situ stress anisotropy from FMI log:

From resistivity imagery logs it was observed that, the majority of shear breakouts occur towards NE-SW irection (i.e 70° to -
270°). This orientation is close to minimum horizontal stress (σh). In general minimum horizontal stress or In-Situ stress is
parallel to the shear breakouts, so that these breakouts or hole failing are likely to be enhanced by the in-situ stress field
(Figure 13).

Maximum horizontal stress (σH) runs NW-SE according to the overall breakout trend. Drilling-induced tensile fractures are
observed below 1300m.

Fractures striking parallel to Maximum horizontal stress (σH) and may experience the lowest normal stress acting across
them. In general Fluid flow Fluids more likely to flow along fractures that strike parallel to (σH).

Conclusions

The Dipole sonic imagery logging (DSI*) successfully measures the shear anisotropy of the formation at Kanawara prospect.
However, current study is used to measure minimum or maximum horizontal stress direction and magnitude by using
additional information known as borehole imaging logs (FMI*) and density logs, which can be used to optimize the
production and maximize the oil recovery from hydraulic facture job.

An attempt was made to evaluate the pore and fracture pressure prediction and well bore stability analysis by utilizing
compressional wave and shear wave data, which may come from Dipole sonic imagery logs. The Eaton model is successfully
used for the pore pressure prediction in the well #1 in Kanawara field. The calibrated pore pressures at the well #1 showed
excellent match with the MDT. The fracture gradient was calibrated using the LOT data.

In this study area, the wellbore stability analysis predicts that there will be drilling challenges for prospective wells.
However, proposed a safe mud weight window to overcome the drilling risk at great extent in this particular area.

In addition, stress anisotropy is an important formation property with applications to geomechanics. We have highlighted
some geomechanical applications, including minimum horizontal stress direction and magnitude for oriented perforations,
optimized fracturing and placement of horizontal wells for maximum production. Increased understanding of sonic
measurements, using these techniques will improve characterization of the reservoirs and help improve recovery efficiency.

Limitation for this study

These results are based on limited shear-wave data (one well only) and negligible stress direction information; therefore, the
model should be refined and updated using more well data.

Acknowledgements

The authors express their sincere thanks to the management of Heramec Limited, Hyderabad, India for giving the opportunity
to write this paper.

Views expressed in this paper are those of the authors only and may not necessarily be of Heramec Limited.
10 IPTC 15508

References

Ali A.H.A., Brown T., Delgado R., Lee D., Plumb D., Smirnov N., Marsden J.R., Prado-Velarde E., Ramsay L.,

Fjaer, E. Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A.M., Risnes, R. (1992), “Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics”, Development in
Petroleum Science 33, Elsevier Science.

Gassmann, F. (1951); ”Elastic waves through a packing of spheres”; Geophysics, 16, pp. 673-685.

Hubbert, M., and Willis, D. “Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing”, Transactions of the American Institute of Mining and
Metallurgical Engineers, 210 (1957): 153-166.

Plumb, R., Edwards, S., Pidcock, G., and Lee, D. (2000);”The Mechanical Earth Model concept and its application to high-
risk well construction projects”; SPE 59128.

Spooner D., Stone T., Stouffer T. (2003); Watching Rocks Change - Mechanical Earth
Modeling; Oilfield Review; Summer 2003, Volume 15, Number 1, pp. 22-39.

Terzaghi, K., 1943, Theoretical soil mechanics: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Subrahmanyam Pachineelam is a Manager (Geosciences) at Heramec Limited, Hyderabad, India. He is

an experienced petroleum Exploration and Development Geologist. Currently working on G & G
studies, Reservoir Engineering, planning and drilling of exploratory and development wells. He got a
Gold medal from Andhra University, India for MSC degree in Geology. Pursuing PhD in
Geomechanics from Delta Studies Institute, Andhra University, India.

Bharat Sastry Paluri is a General Manager (Technical) at Heramec Limited, India. He is a Petroleum
exploration Geophysicist, held several responsible positions in various organizations in Seismic data
acquisition, processing and interpretation. Current responsibilities in Heramec include coordination of
G&G studies, planning and implementation of work programs. He holds a MSC (Tech) degree in
Geophysics from Andhra University, India and Pursuing PhD in Micro delta Deltaic environments
through Seismic from Delta studies Institute, Andhra University, India.

Anand Siva Kumar Mudigonda is a Director at Heramec Limited, India. Pursued Master degree in
Geophysics from Andhra University, India. Pursuing PhD in Petroleum Economics from Delta studies
Institute, Andhra University, India. He is Member, Academic council, Delta Studies Institute,
Visakhapatnam, India. Instrumental in E&P Asset Technical & Commercial evaluations and
acquisitions. Adept in Global E&P production sharing contracts strategies and implementations.

NDJ Rao, Worked in ONGC for 31 years and was Chief Geophysicist/Additional Director(Prog) when
he left ONGC in 1989, was President (Seismic Division) in Computech International Ltd, Kolkata and
presently working as a Director Alkor Technologies Limited, Hyderabad, India. He has more than 50
years experience in oil exploration; seismic exploration, seismic data processing, interpretation and