SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009
DETERMINING STRESS REGIME AND Q FACTOR
FROM SONIC DATA
Vivian Pistre, Gong Rui Yan, Bikash Sinha, Romain Prioul, Schlumberger;
Sandrine Vidal-Gilbert, Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies
Copyright 2009, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log
Analysts (SPWLA) and the submitting authors.
th
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 50 Annual
Logging Symposium held in The Woodlands, Texas, United States, June 21-
24, 2009.
ABSTRACT
Extracting quantitative information on formation rock
stresses from borehole log measurements is
fundamental to the analysis and prediction of
geomechanical problems encountered in the
petroleum industry. Today there is no direct
measurement to fully characterize the formation rock
in-situ stresses tensor (three principal stress
magnitudes, σ1, σ2, σ3 and three angles to describe
the directions, with σ1>σ2>σ3). Generally, it can be
reasonably assumed that the vertical stress is one
principal stress, so we will have four parameters to
describe the in-situ stresses: vertical (σv), minimum
horizontal (σh), maximum horizontal (σH) stress
magnitudes and the azimuth of minimum horizontal
stress. The vertical stress may be estimated from an
integral of the density log, while the minimum
horizontal stress can be estimated using fracturing or
leak-off test data, and its direction from borehole
caliper or images analysis. However, the maximum
horizontal stress is more difficult to estimate, the
conventional approach is to use some correlations
such as the poro-elastic strain correlation, or the
approximations such as equating the maximum
horizontal stress to some multiple of the minimum
horizontal stress.
Since model-based or empirical correlations for
maximum horizontal stress are always associated
with a big uncertainty, a correlation or model of the
maximum horizontal stress to that of the vertical and
minimum horizontal stresses, interpreted directly
from logging, is to be preferred. Recent
developments in sonic logging have made it possible
to measure accurately the formation rock anisotropic
wave velocities induced by in-situ stress anisotropy.
This technology of sonic logging provides us the data
and information to interpret the deviatoric stress
ellipsoid shape factor, R (0 < R =(σ2-σ3)/(σ1-σ3) < 1)
1
and the stress regime or its equivalent the stress
regime factor Q (Q=R for normal, Q=2-R for strike-
slip and Q=R+2 for thrust), and then estimate the
maximum horizontal stress.
This paper presents a model for estimating the stress
regime Q factor from anisotropic sonic measurements
in sand or shale formations penetrated by a vertical
wellbore. The model is based on a perturbation
theory of stress-dependent elastic properties. For an
intrinsic isotropic medium such as a sand formation,
borehole measured wave anisotropy can be identified
to be stress-induced, and an equation to compute
stress regime factor Q from anisotropic shear moduli
is deduced. For laminated formations, such as shale,
by considering a relatively homogeneous interval of
interest, an equation to estimate Q from sonic
anisotropy is also provided.
INTRODUCTION
A detailed knowledge of formation stresses helps in
successful drilling to access reservoirs and to manage
those that are prone to subsidence caused by a
reduction in pore pressure during production or
damages due to increased pore pressure during
injection. The magnitude and orientation of the in-
situ stresses in a given field also provide valuable
information on the permeability distribution that can
influence planning of wellbore trajectories,
stimulation by hydraulic fracturing and injection
schemes for water or steam flooding.
Today there is no direct measurement to fully
characterize the formation rock in-situ stresses tensor
(three principal stresses and three angles to describe
the directions). In the majority of cases the vertical
stress is one of the principal stresses and we will only
need four more parameters to describe the in-situ
stresses: vertical stress, minimum and maximum
horizontal stresses, and the azimuth of the minimum
horizontal stress.
The maximum stress direction is given by the Fast
Shear Azimuth (FSA) extracted from borehole sonic
SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009

data in vertical or wells with small inclinations. For
deviated wells or when the well is oblique with
respect to the principal stress directions, e.g. in the
vicinity of a major fault, FSA can be extracted from
the analysis of the deviatoric stress tensor sensed in
the well (Sun and Prioul, 2009). When a borehole
sonic is not available, the maximum stress direction
can sometimes be derived from borehole breakouts or
drilling induced fractures seen on wellbore wall
images if they are present.
The vertical stress magnitude is estimated from an
integral of the density log, while the minimum
horizontal stress intensity can be inferred by using
leak-off test or min-frac data. However, the
maximum horizontal stress magnitude is more
difficult to estimate, and the conventional approach is
to use some correlations or approximations such as
equating the maximum horizontal stress to some
multiple of the minimum horizontal stress derived for
regional information.
As we improve our estimates of stresses from
borehole measurements, it is not uncommon to find
that the local stresses around a borehole that affect
the reservoir producibility and near-wellbore stability
can be significantly different than the regional
tectonic stress model involving large global averages.
A correlation or model of the maximum horizontal
stress to that of the vertical and minimum horizontal
stresses, directly interpreted from logging data helps
decrease the uncertainty attached to such
approximations.
factor Q from anisotropic shear moduli is deduced.
For laminated formations, such as shale, an equation
to estimate Q from sonic anisotropy is also provided
using a relatively homogeneous interval of interest
along the well.
The approach described in this paper can be used to
characterize the formation stress regime and estimate
the maximum horizontal stress magnitude. Unlike
other conventional models for stress determination,
which always require borehole failure observations in
order to interpret stress magnitudes, this method can
be used where accurate sonic anisotropy
measurements are available.
STRESS REGIME FACTOR Q
Formation rock in-situ stress is fully characterized by
a stress tensor (three principal stresses and three
angles to describe the directions). Figure 1 shows a
borehole in the presence of formation principal
stresses to provide a reference for the following
discussion.

Recent developments in sonic logging have made it

possible to accurately measure the formation rock
anisotropic wave velocities induced by in-situ stress
anisotropy (Sinha, B.K., 1998, 2004, 2006;; Sayers,
C.M., 2005,; Sarkar et al., 2003; Prioul et al., 2004).
This technology of sonic logging provides us with the
data and information to interpret the stress regime Fig 1. Schematic of sonic tool in a borehole with the
anisotropy factor Q (Q=R for normal, Q=2-R for presence of formation principal stresses.
strike-slip and Q=R+2 for thrust with R =(σ2-σ3)/(σ1-
σ3)), (Etchecopar and Cheung, 1994; Cesaro et al., If we define the three principal total stresses as σ1, σ2
2000;), and then estimate the maximum horizontal and σ3 where σ3 ≤ σ2 ≤ σ1, the stress ratio factor R is
stress magnitude. defined as:
σ2 −σ3
This paper describes a methodology to compute the R= ( 0 ≤ R ≤ 1) (1)
stress regime Q factor from anisotropic sonic σ1 − σ 3
measurements in sand and shale formations
penetrated by a vertical wellbore. The model is based In the above equation, R represents only the degree
on a perturbation theory of stress-dependent elastic of anisotropy of the three principal stresses but not
properties. For an intrinsic isotropic medium such as the relative magnitude of the vertical stress σV with
a sand formation, borehole measured wave velocity respect to the two horizontal stresses.
anisotropy is attributed to differences in principal
stresses, and an equation to compute the stress regime

2
 SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009
However the relative order of the principal stresses is
a very important factor for stress characterization, as
different relative stress magnitudes around the
borehole are indicators of totally different stress
environment that can potentially induce different
geomechanical failures of the formation. Figure 2
below shows the three Andersonian faulting regime
relating principal stress ranking with respect to the
vertical and the horizontal plane and the type of
environment they indicate.
Fig 2 Stress Regime and Andersonian Faults Models
To overcome this problem, a unique parameter, stress
regime factor Q, was introduced by Etchecopar et al.
(Etchecopar A., and Cheung, 1994; Cesaro et al.,
2000) as:
When σ1 is the vertical (Normal fault), i.e. σV≥ σH ≥
σh
σ H −σh
Q = R1 = 0≤Q≤1 (2)
σV − σ h
When σ2 is the vertical (Strike-slip fault), i.e. σH ≥ σV
≥ σh
σV − σ h
Q = 2 − R2 = 2 − 1 < Q ≤ 2 (3)
σH −σh
When σ3 is the vertical (Thrust fault), i.e. σH ≥ σh ≥
σV
σ h − σV
Q = 2 + R3 = 2 + 2<Q≤3 (4)
σ H − σV
The advantage of Q representation is that it presents
not only the degree of formation rock stress
anisotropy, but also the characterization of the stress
regime. For the normal faults stress regime, 0 ≤ Q ≤
1; for the strike-slip faults stress regime, 1 < Q ≤ 2
3
and for the thrust faults stress regime, 2 < Q ≤ 3. In
the section below we will discuss how to extract Q
from borehole sonic measurements.
STRESS-DEPENDENCE OF THE ELASTIC-
MODULI
It is well recognized that sonic wave velocities in
sedimentary formation are stress-dependent (Sinha et
al., 2005, 2006, 2008;; Sayers, 2005, 2005; Sarkar et
al., 2003; Prioul et al., 2004), and the rock formation
under the effect of anisotropic in-situ stresses (which
is true for most cases) will exhibit some degree of
anisotropic elasticity. With the development of
advanced borehole sonic tools, such as Sonic Scanner
tool from Schlumberger, the anisotropic elastic
behavior of formation rock can be measured and
analyzed.
As shown in Figure 3, consider a situation of the
formation rock buried under the vertical stress σv,
minimum horizontal stress σh, maximum horizontal
stress σH, and pore pressure Pp. Define the
coordinate system X1, X2, X3, where the borehole
axis (X3) is aligned with vertical stress σV, and the
X1-axis is aligned with the direction of σh.
Fig 3. Borehole sonic measurement and anisotropic
shear moduli C44, C55 and C66
Using a sonic tool, we can measure the three shear
moduli of the formation, C44, C55 and C66. Here the
Voigt conventional matrix notation is used, where C44
is the shear modulus in the plane of X2-X3 (σH and
σV), C55 in the plane of X3-X1 (σV and σh) and C66 in
the plane of X1-X2 (σh and σH).
Intrinsically Isotropic Sedimentary Formation
If we assume the material with intrinsic isotropy,
following Sinha, (2004) and based on a perturbation
theory of stress-dependent elastic model, the
anisotropic changes, from a reference state, in elastic
shear moduli C44 and C66, induced by the anisotropic
SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009

stress (σV, σH, σh and pore pressure Pp) can be

described as: σ H − σ h C55 − C44 1
= = R1 = (13)
σ V − σ h C55 − C66 R2
E
∆ C 44 − ∆ C 66 = [ + 2 C 44 + ( C155 − C144 )]
1+υ (5) σ h − σ V C66 − C55
1+υ = = R3 (14)
⋅ ( ∆σ V − ∆σ H ) σ H − σ V C66 − C44
E

The above equations relates differences in anisotropic

where E , υ, and C44 are the Young’s modulus,
Poisson’s ratio, and shear modulus of the formation
in the chosen reference state (initial state); and C155
and C144 are the formation nonlinear constants in the
reference state. As all of these parameters are the
elastic properties of material in the reference state,
which is by definition an isotropic reference state, we
can simplify equation (5) as:
∆ C 44 − ∆ C 66 = AE ⋅ ( ∆ σ V − ∆ σ H )
where
E 1 +υ
AE = [ + 2C44 + (C155 − C144 )]⋅
1 +υ E
The Acousto-Elastic parameter AE represents the
formation shear stiffness sensitivity to applied
stresses in the isotropic reference state, which
describes changes in elastic shear moduli caused by
changes in stresses applied to the wave propagating
medium.
Following the same philosophy, we can obtain
corresponding equations for (C44-C55) and (C55-C66)
∆ C 44 − ∆ C 55 = A E ⋅ ( ∆ σ h − ∆ σ H )
∆ C 55 − ∆ C 66 = AE ⋅ ( ∆ σ V − ∆ σ h )
shear moduli to corresponding changes in principal
stresses for an isotropic medium in the absence of
any anisotropic stresses, as is the case for a porous
sand formation. One nice feature of this correlation is
that it does not rely on the reference state or the stress
sensitivity property AE, as those have been
introduced in the above deduction process but have
been eliminated by conveniently using ratio of
differences among principal stresses.
(6)
Intrinsically Anisotropic Sedimentary Formation
Let us now consider a relatively homogeneous shale
interval buried in a deep formation, where the
(7) increase of stress from the top depth to a bottom
depth is ∆σV, ∆σH and ∆σh, while the increase of pore
pressure is ∆Pp. Differences in anisotropic shear
moduli, ∆C44, ∆C55 and ∆C66 can be measured from a
sonic tool. We can reasonably assume the shale
formation in the chosen interval to have the same
degree of intrinsic anisotropy, and differences in
shear moduli along from the top to the bottom of the
interval, ∆C44, ∆C55 and ∆C66, are caused by
corresponding differences in stresses between the top
and bottom depths. Therefore, equation (5) can then
be approximated by
(8)
E
(9) ∆C44 − ∆C66 ≈ [ + 2C
0
44 + (C 155 − C 144 )]
0 0

For a material with intrinsic isotropy, such as a sand
formation, we can reasonably assume a reference
state of isotropic elastic moduli subject to isotropic
stresses (isotropic stress σ0, and the isotropic shear
moduli C440), and so we can rewrite the above
equation (6), (8) and (9) as:
C 66 − C 44 = AE ⋅ (σ H − σ V ) (10)
C 44 − C 55 = AE ⋅ (σ h − σ H ) (11)
1+υ
1+υ (15)
⋅ (∆σ V − ∆σ H )
E
Equation (15) is similar to equation (5) but with a
different physical meaning. In equation (5),
differences are related to the reference state at the
same depth, while for a shale formation, these
differences are between the top and bottom of the
chosen interval with a reasonably uniform lithology.

C 55 − C 66 = AE ⋅ (σ V − σ h ) (12) Following the same steps as before we can obtain

There are only two independent equations among ∆σ H − ∆σ h ∆C55 − ∆C44

equations (10), (11) and (12), and we can rewrite = (16)
these two equations as ∆σ V − ∆σ h ∆C55 − ∆C66

4
 SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009

C55 + C66 − 2C44

∆σ h − ∆σ V ∆C66 − ∆C55 Q= (19)
= (17) C55 − C44
∆σ H − ∆σ V ∆C66 − ∆C44
For a Thrust fault stress regime (σH ≥ σh ≥ σV):
These are the two equations to describe differences in
the principal stresses to corresponding differences in
σh − σV C66 − C55
anisotropic shear moduli in a relatively uniform shale Q = 2+ = 2 + R3 = 2 +
interval. σH − σV C66 − C44
3C − 2C44 − C55
SONIC ANISOTROPY, STRESS REGIME AND
Q = 66 (20)
Q C66 − C44
In this section we will consider an intrinsically
isotropic formation as an illustration of the procedure From the above analysis, it can be observed that, in
to obtain stress regime and Q. an intrinsically isotropic formation, the sonic shear
anisotropy evaluation enables the identification of the
Equations (13) and (14) do not only provide a stress regime and the amount of stress anisotropy via
relationship between the Cij shear moduli obtained the Q factor that the formation is subjected to. Table
1 below summarizes results described in this section.
from a sonic tool and the in-situ principal stresses but
they also allow us to identify relative magnitude of
stresses and identify the stress regime in the logged For intrinsically anisotropic formations, such as in
interval. shale, the type of stress regime and magnitudes of
stress anisotropy cannot be deduced as readily.
If R1 in equation (13) is between 0 and 1, i.e., C55 However, the increment of principal stress
magnitudes versus depth can be related to the
≥C44 ≥C66, then we have a normal fault stress regime. variation of shear moduli from sonic measurements.
If its inverse (R2) is between 0 and 1, i.e., C55≥C66 A full analysis of stress regime and amount of stress
≥C44, then the stress regime corresponds to a Strike- anisotropy can also be derived from sonic in such
Slip fault. And finally if R3 in equation (14) is anisotropic formations and will be addressed in a
between zero and unity, i.e., C66≥C55 ≥C44, the in-situ separate paper.
stresses follow the regime of a Thrust fault pattern.
Table 1: Anisotropic Shear Moduli, Stress Regime
Thus, the first advantage of using shear moduli and Q Factor
extracted from sonic data is that their relative ranking Shear
Stress
is an indicator of the in-situ stress regime. Moduli Q factor
Regime
Ranking
We can now incorporate the sand anisotropy model Normal 0 ≤ C 5 5 − C 4 4 ≤ 1
(equations (13) and (14)) into Q (equations (2) to (4)) C55>C44>C66
faults C − C
to obtain the amount of stress anisotropy for each of 55 66

the stress regimes that can be identified by sonic Strike- C55 + C66 − 2C 44
measurements alone for an intrinsically isotropic C55>C66>C44 slip 1< ≤2
material. faults C55 − C 44
Thrust 3C66 − 2C44 − C55
For a Normal fault stress regime (σV ≥ σH ≥ σh): C66>C55>C44 2< ≤3
faults C66 − C44
σH −σh C − C44
Q= = R1 = 55 (18) Once the stress regime factor Q has been interpreted
σV − σ h C55 − C66 from the anisotropic shear moduli C66, C55 and C44 as
described above, we can compute the magnitude of
For a Strike-slip fault stress regime (σH ≥ σV ≥ σh): maximum horizontal stress σH from Q, the
overburden stress σV normally computed by
σV − σ h C −C integrating the bulk density measurement and the
Q = 2− = 2 − R2 = 2 − 55 66
σ H −σh C55 − C44 minimum horizontal σh, extracted from Formation
Leak-Off tests or mini-frac tests, and complete in-situ
stresses interpretation.

5
SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009
FIELD EXAMPLE
The following section describes the analysis of the
data recorded in a vertical well located in the Naylor
Field, Otway Basin, Victoria, Australia, where the
CO2CRC (Cooperative Research Centre for
Greenhouse Gas Technologies) is conducting a CO2
storage demonstration project. In this well an
imaging tool was run together with a sonic tool that
provided the Cij shear moduli in the three orthogonal
planes of principal stresses (Bérard et al., 2008). This
combination of borehole image and sonic data
allowed us to apply the methodology described in
this paper and compare geomechanical predictions
based on the stress regime and magnitudes with those
obtained from a different technique (Sinha et al.,
2008). We have also used these stress magnitude
predictions in a wellbore stability model and
compared the results with in-situ images recorded
with the imaging tool.
Figure 4 shows in the third track from left the
anisotropic shear moduli extracted from the sonic
data measured in this well for a few sand intervals
indicated in track 1. A relatively constant Fast Shear
Azimuth, NW140~150o, can be observed in the
second track.
An examination of dipole dispersion curves of the
fast and slow shear velocities indicates a crossover
behavior or a tendency of crossover between the fast
and slow shear slowness dispersions in all sand
intervals. Figure 5 shows a few examples of such
dipole dispersion crossovers. These observations
indicate that the vertical plane slowness anisotropy
(difference of the red and blue curve at low
frequency) is largely stress-induced. Therefore, sonic
data satisfies assumptions made in the present study
and the three shear moduli (C44, C55, C66) can be used
to analyze the in-situ stresses with the model
proposed in this paper.
Figure 6 depicts the Mechanical Earth Model (MEM)
computed from this data set using standard
techniques. The lithology is indicated next to the
depth index. The first track displays the lithology.
The second one shows the elastic moduli, Young’s
modulus in blue and shear modulus in red, both of
them from 0 to 15 GPa (left to right); Poisson’s ratio
in green from 0 to 0.5; and the coefficient alpha from
0 to 1.5. The third track displays the Compressive
Strength (UCS) in solid magenta increasing to the
right from 0 to 20,000 kPa, Tensile Strength over the
same scale in blue as well as the friction angle from 0
to 50 degrees. The right track shows the principal
6
stress magnitudes obtained from standard techniques.
Pore pressure is in brown, the overburden stress σV in
magenta, minimum horizontal stress in blue and
maximum horizontal stress in red, all scaled from left
to right between 0 and 30,000 kPa. The minimum
stress has been computed with the classical poro-
elastic-horizontal-strain model and calibrated to the
Extended Leak-Off Test (ELOT) results. The
maximum horizontal stress has been computed using
a ratio of 1.05 between the two horizontal stresses, a
value used in previous studies of the stress field in
this area.
To improve on these estimates, the maximum
horizontal stress magnitude will now be estimated
using the methodology described in this paper.
It can be seen on the third track from the left of
Figure 4 that in the sand intervals, the three moduli
are ranked as follows: C66 < C44 < C55. We can
therefore, conclude that the logged interval is in a
normal fault stress regime.
The next step is to use the normal fault stress regime
equation (18) to compute the stress factor Q. In a
sand interval, this computed value is between 0.5 ~
0.6 as shown in Figure 7, and indicated by the blue
curve in the second track increasing from 0 to 1 from
left to right.
From this stress regime factor Q and with the
knowledge of pore pressure (from MDT testing), the
overburden stress and minimum stress σh (modeled
and calibrated by ELOT testing), we obtain the
maximum horizontal stress σH profile as shown in the
third track of Figure 7. Results for the σH magnitude
obtained from this study is consistent and very close
to the stress profile predicted by Bérard et al. (2008)
using a different inversion algorithm (Sinha et al.,
2007).
The second track of Figure 7 shows in violet,
increasing left to right between 1 and 1.5, the ratio of
maximum to minimum stress magnitudes computed
from sonic data. This value varies between 1.1 and
1.2 and is substantially different from the 1.05 value
derived from regional stress information.
A final validation step consists of computing
wellbore stability predictions for the drilling
conditions. We compare these wellbore stability
predictions with observed damages as inferred from
borehole images and caliper data.
Wellbore stability study was carried out using the
stress profile estimated above from the sonic data and
 SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009
other formation rock mechanical properties computed
from log data and previously presented in the MEM
(Figure 6) but using the maximum stress value shown
in Figure 7.
Figure 8 shows results from the wellbore stability
predictions. The first track depicts the lithology. The
second track shows (0 to 2.5 g/cc left to right) a
prediction of the safe mud weight in the white shaded
area using the Mohr-Coulomb failure model, whereas
red zones with too low a mud weight will create
breakouts, and blue shaded are denotes too high mud
weight that will cause drilling induce factures and
potential drilling fluid loss. The green line shows the
mud weight used to drill this well and the intersection
of this line with the red and blue zones indicate
depths exhibiting breakouts and drilling induced
fractures. The top half of this interval predicts
potential breakouts but no depths here sees a crossing
of the used mud weight with the blue area suggesting
that drilling induced fractures should not be present
in this interval. The fourth track displays the
measured caliper (0 to 16 inches left to right) with
shading between the bit size and the caliper curve to
highlight the presence of breakouts. Good agreement
has been obtained between predicted breakouts for
the used mud weight as shown by intersection of the
red shaded area in track 3 and the actual caliper data
displayed in track 4.
The track 2 in Figure 9 shows a synthetic image of
predicted borehole conditions (breakouts as induced
fractures are not detected here) computed from the
wellbore stability model described. The actual FMI
image is displayed in track 3 for comparison. The top
section is in a rather compressed scale and it does not
show a good comparison between predictions and
observations. Consequently, we present these results
in a magnified scale for depths in the vicinity of the
red arrow in a subplot at the bottom of Figure 9.
Breakouts are identified by the blue arrows on both
predicted and recorded images that show excellent
agreement. Insofar as the azimuth of the breakout in
the model image matches with the borehole breakout
direction detected by the formation imager, this
confirms that the FSA computed from the cross-
dipole sonic data was correct. This display also
shows good agreement for the severity of breakouts
as well as in the actual azimuthal coverage of them.
The good agreement between the predicted borehole
damages and the ones observed with the imaging tool
validates the stress magnitude estimates computed
from the sonic data with the method proposed in this
paper.
7
The study of drilling induced tensile fracture in
another part of the basin (Ref 4), as well as basin
focal mechanism and regional neotectonics (Ref 5)
suggested evidence of a strike-slip fault regime in the
area, different from the conclusions above. However
in the well being studied here, there was no
prediction of borehole induced fractures nor was any
observed on the imaging tool data. While these
preliminary results obtained with the proposed
method are promising more data and validation at
reservoir depth are required to confirm them.
CONCLUSION
This paper presents a new methodology to extract the
intensity of the maximum horizontal stress from a
sonic logging tool that can provide the anisotropic
moduli in the three orthogonal principal stress planes.
The analytic formulation is based on a perturbation
theory of the stress-dependent elastic properties. For
a medium where the acoustic sensitivity to stress is
isotropic, such as in sand formations, measured shear
moduli anisotropy is used to define the stress regime,
compute the stress anisotropy factor Q, which in turn
is combined with the vertical and minimum
horizontal stress magnitudes to obtain the maximum
horizontal stress magnitude. This formulation can
also provide formation Q factor for laminated
formations or rocks exhibiting intrinsic anisotropy, as
is the case in a shale formation. The methodology has
been validated in sand intervals on a real data set
where good agreement has been obtained between the
predicted breakouts and the ones measured with
calipers from an imaging tool. While the Normal
Fault stress regime and maximum stress magnitude
obtained here are in agreement with the well
observations more data analysis at reservoir depth
and in presence of Drilling Induced Fractures is
required to validate the conclusions, different from
the Strike-Slip Fault regime observed in other parts
of the basin.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Schlumberger and
CO2CRC (Cooperative Research Centre for
Greenhouse Gas Technologies) for allowing us to
publish the paper. They also acknowledge Thomas
Bérard for many helpful discussions and Ting Lei for
his processing Sonic Scanner data.
SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009
REFERENCES SECTION
1. Bérard T., Sinha B. K., van Ruth P., Dance T.,
John Z. and Tan C. (2008), Stress estimation at
the Otway CO2 storage site, Australia,
SPE116422
2. Etchecopar, A. and Cheung P. (1994),
Estimation of maximum horizontal stress
direction and stress ellipsoid shape factor from
borehole breakout, SPE workshop, Bali 1994.
3. Cesaro, M., Gonfalini M., Cheung P., and
Etchecopar A. (2000), Shaping up to stress in the
Apennines: Schlumberger Well Evaluation
Conference Italy.
4. Nelson, E., Hillis, R.R., Sandiford, M.,
Reynolds, S. and Mildren, S., (2006), Present-
day state-of-stress of Southern Australia, APPEA
Journal, 46, 283-305.
5. Hillis, R.R., Sandiford, M., Reynolds, S. and
Quigley, M.C., (2008), The nature and Origin of
Compression in Passive Margins. Geological
Society, London Special Publications, 306, 201-
204.
6. Prioul, R., Bakulin A. and Bakulin V. (2004),
Non-linear rock physics model for estimation of
3-D subsurface stress in anisotropic formations:
Theory and laboratory verification, Geophysics,
Vol. 69, pp. 415-425.
7. Sarkar, D., Bakulin, A., and Kranz, R. (2003),
Anisotropic inversion of seismic data for stressed
media: Theory and a physical modeling study on
Berea Sandstone: Geophysics, 68, 690–704.
8. Sayers, C.M. (2005), Sensitivity of elastic-wave
velocities to stress changes in sandstones, The
Leading Edge, December 2005
9. Sinha, B.K., Vissapragada, B., Renlie, L., and
Skomedal, E., (2005), Horizontal Stress
Magnitude Estimation Using the Three Shear
Moduli—A Norwegian Sea Case Study. SPE
paper 103079
10. Sinha, B.K., Vissapragada, B., Renlie, L., and
Tysse, S., (2006), Radial profiling of the three
formation shear moduli and its application to
well completions, Geophysics, 71, E65-E77.
11. Sinha, B.K., Vissapragada, B., Wendt, A.,
Kongslein, M., Skomedal, E., Renlie, L., and
Sandtrov, E., (2007), Estimation of formation
stresses using radial variation of three shear
moduli —A Case Study. SPE paper 109842
12. Sinha, B.K., Wang, J., Kisra, S., Li, J., Pistre, V.,
Bratton, T., and Sanders, M., (2008), Estimation
of formation stresses using borehole sonic data,
SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium,
Edinburgh, Scotland, May 25-28.
8
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Vivian Pistre is a Principal Engineer at
Schlumberger. He has an engineer degree in
Computer Sciences from ENSEEIH Toulouse, France
and holds a DEA in artificial Intelligence at the
University of Sciences, Toulouse, France. He joined
Schlumberger in 1982 as a wireline field operation
engineer and has held since several positions for
Wireline operations, Log Interpretation, LWD
operations, marketing and engineering management.
He is currently manager of various software
engineering projects at Schlumberger BGC in
Beijing, China. He is a member of SPWLA, SEG,
SPE and EAGE.
Gong Rui Yan is a senior Engineer at Schlumberger.
He has received a Ph.D degree of Hydraulic
Engineering from Tsinghua University. He joined
Schlumberger in 1997 as a project engineer working
on software development. He has contributed on
Schlumberger geomechanical software and
applications development, as well as on reservoir
coupled modeling. He is currently geomechanics
domain architect at Schlumberger BGC in Beijing,
China.
Bikash Sinha is a Scientific Advisor at
Schlumberger-Doll Research. Since joining
Schlumberger in 1979, he has contributed to many
sonic logging innovations for geophysical and
geomechanical applications, as well as development
of high precision quartz pressure sensors for
downhole measurements. He is currently involved in
the near-wellbore characterization of mechanical
damage and estimation of formation stress
parameters using borehole sonic data. Bikash has
received a B.Tech. (Hons.) degree from the Indian
Institute of Technology, and a M.A.Sc. degree from
the University of Toronto, both in mechanical
engineering, and a Ph.D. degree in applied mechanics
from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. He
has authored or coauthored more than 160 technical
papers and received 28 U.S. Patents. An IEEE fellow,
he received the 1993 outstanding paper award for an
innovative design and development of quartz
pressure sensor published in the IEEE Transactions
on UFFC.
Romain Prioul is Senior Research scientist and
program manager at Schlumberger-Doll Research.
He received a PhD (2000) in Geophysics from the
Institute de Physique du Globe de Paris, France.
From 1999 to 2000, he also worked as a research and
teaching assistant of rock mechanics at the same
institute. From 2000 to 2003, he was a Research
 SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009

Scientist at the Schlumberger Cambridge Research,

UK, and has been a Senior Research Scientist at
Schlumberger-Doll Research from 2003 to 2005 in
Ridgefield, CT, USA and since 2005 in Cambridge,
MA, USA. He is currently managing a team of
researchers in geomechanics and petrophysics. His
research interests include sonic and seismic
anisotropy, geomechanics and rock physics, surface
and downhole seismic reservoir monitoring. He is
member of SEG, SPWLA and AEGE.

Sandrine Vidalgilbert is a is Senior Researcher at

the University of Adelaide and Discipline Leader in
Geomechanics for CO2CRC (Cooperative Research
Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies).
After receiving a MSc degree in Geophysics from the
Institute de Physique du Globe de Strasbourg, France
and a MSc degree in Petroleum Geosciences from
IFP School, Paris, France, she worked from 1999 to
2001 for Gaz de France during her PhD, on the
integration of reservoir seismic monitoring and
geomechanics for underground gas storage facility.
From 2002 to 2007, she worked as researcher in the
Geomechanics Dept., IFP. She is currently managing
a team of researchers in geomechanics. Her main
interests include 3D geomechanical modelling for Figure 4: Sonic and Imaging Tools data
CO2 storage and evaluation of fault and formation (see text for details)
stability.

Figure 5: Dipole Dispersion curves in sand

intervals

9
SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009

Figure 6: Mechanical Earth Model

(see text for details)

Figure 8: Wellbore Stability Analysis vs. Breakout

(see text for details)

Figure 7: Q Factor, σH and σH /σ σh ratio from Sonic

(see text for details)

10
 SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009

Figure 9: Predicted and recorded image with

zoom below around zone indicated by red allow

11