Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 78

Module F:

Drilling in Unusual Stress Regimes


Part I Overpressured Cases
Argentina SPE 2005 Course on
Earth Stresses and Drilling Rock Mechanics
Maurice B. Dusseault
University of Waterloo and Geomec a.s

Drilling in Overpressured Zones

For practical purposes ($), reducing the


number of casings or liners is desirable
However, drilling in OP zones carries
simultaneous risks of blowouts and lost
circulation that are difficult to manage.
There now exist new options that help us:
Drilling

slightly above hmin with LCM in the mud

Bicentre

bits and expandable casings

Understanding overpressure and also the


deep zone of stress reversion will help

Pressures at Depth
~10 MPa

pressure (MPa)

Fresh water: ~10 MPa/km


8.33 ppg
0.43 psi/frt
Sat. NaCl brine: ~12 MPa/km
10 ppg
0.516 psi/ft

Hydrostatic pressure distribution: p(z) = wgz


1 km

Underpressured case:
underpressure ratio = p/
(wgz), a value less than 0.95

underpressure

depth

overpressure

Overpressured case:
overpressure ratio = p/(wgz),
a value greater than 1.2
Normally pressured range:
0.95 < p(norm) < 1.2

Some Definitions

For consistency, some definitions:


Hydrostatic: po = weight column of water
above the point, = 8.33 ppg to 10 ppg in
exceptional cases of saturated NaCl brine
Underpressure is defined as po less than
95% of the hydrostatic po, usually found
only at relatively shallow depths (<2 km) or
in regions of very high relief (canyons)
Mild overpressure: po of 10 ppg to 60% v
Medium overpressure: po of 60 to 80% v
Strong overpressure: po > 80% of v

Abnormal Pressure, Gradient Plot


1.0

2.0

16.7 ppg

1
po

hmin

thick shale
sequence

po

4
Target A
5

Target B

Target C
depth - kilometres

Typically, po is close to
hydrostatic in the upper
region
hmin is close to v in
shallow muds, soft
shale, but lower in stiff
competent deeper shale
A sharp transition zone
is common (200-600 m)
The OP zone may be 2-3
km thick
A stress reversion zone
may exist below OP

GoM The Classic OP Regime

Other Well-Known Strong OP Areas

Iran, Tarim Basin (China), North Sea,


Offshore Eastern Canada, Caspian
In many thick basins, OP is found only at
depth, without a sharp transition zone
Most common in young basins that filled
rapidly with thick shale sequences
Good

ductile shale seals, undercompaction


Watch out for OP related to salt tectonics!

These are most common offshore:


Land

basins have often undergone uplift


Tectonics have allowed pressures to dissipate

Eastern Canada Overpressured Areas

Nova Scotia Gas Belt


Importance of Geomechanics
Exports

Porosity vs Depth & Overpressure


0

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.0

porosity

sands &
sandstones

mud

clay & shale,


normal line

In some cases, 28%


at depths of 6 km!

clay

mudstone

Anomalously high
, low vP, vS, and
other properties
may indicate OP

shale

4-8 km

effect of OP
on porosity

depth

+T
slate (deep)

Permeability and Depth

Muds and shales have


low k, < 0.001 D, and as
low as 10-10 D
Exception: in zones of
deep fractured shale,
k can approach 0.1-1 D
Sands decrease in k
with z
Exception, high
sands in OP zones can
have high k
Anhydrite, salt k = 0!
Carbonates, it depends

Permeability k Darcies
1
Muds and
Shales

Sands and Sandstones

Depth z 1000s ft

10

15

Intact muds and shales


have negligible k
High porosity OP sands
have anomalously high
porosity & permeability

20

25

Fractured shales at depth may


have high fracture permeability

Abnormal po Causes

Delayed compaction of thick shale zones


Water

is under high pressure


Leak off to sands is very slow (low k)

Thermal effects (H2O expansion)

Nearby topographic highs (artesian effect)


Hydrocarbon generation (shales expel HCs,
they accumulate in traps at higher po)

Gypsum dewatering ( anhydrite + H2O)

Clay mineral changes (Smectite Illite +


H2O + SiO2)

Isolated sand diagenesis (, no drainage)

Mechanisms for OP Generation

Compaction =
H2O expelled to sand
bodies, especially
from swelling clays

Montmorillonite = much H2O

Diagenesis
Illite
Kaolinite
Chlorite

Mud, clays
H2H020

Sand

Shale

0-2000 m
H20

2000-4000 m

Sandstone
4000-6000 m

+ Free H2O
+ SiO2

Compaction and
Clay Diagenesis

Mechanisms for OP Generation

Artesian effect (high elevation recharge)


rain
Thrust tectonics (small effect)
Deep thermal expansion

clays and silts

3-10 km

Artesian charging is
usually shallow only

20-100 km

Artesian charging
Thrusting can lead
to some OP
+T = +V of H2O: thermal
expansion at depth

Offshore: Trapping of OP
Listric faults on continental margins lead to
isolated fault blocks, good seals, high OP in the
isolated sand bodies from shale compaction
down-to-the-sea or listric faults
sea

stress

v
h
po

shale

slip planes

Sand bodies that have no


drainage because of fault seals,
OP is trapped indefinitely

shale

depth
Stress reversion zone

HC Generation and OP
v

shale

T, p,
increase

Semi-solid
organics, kerogen,
po < h < v

kerogen

microfissure

fluid
flow

HCs generated
in organic shales

high T, p,

sands
oil and gas
generation of hydrocarbon fluids

po = h < v,
Fractures develop
and grow
Pressured fluids are
expelled through the
fracture network, po
stored in OP sands

OP From Gas Cap Development


A

pressures along A-A


stress

gas cap
effect
oil, density
= 0.75-0.85

depth

Thick gas cap development,


perhaps charged from below,
can generate high OP

gas cap,
low density

po

Gas migration along


fractured zones,
faults, etc.
Fractured rock
Deep gas source
around fault

Gas rises: gravitational segregation

Abnormal Pressure Sand-Shales

Overpressure is often generated due to


shale compaction and clay diagenesis
Montmorillonite (smectite) changes to
lllite/Chlorite at depth. H20 is generated
and is a source of OP.
Pressure is generated in shales, sands
accumulate pressure
PF commonly higher in shales than sands
Sand-shale osmotic effects (salinity
differences) can also contribute to OP

PF in GoM Sand-Shale Sequences


Absolute stress values
PF in sand line

hmin

stress
v

Stress gradient plot


hmin
z

shale
sandstone
shale
sandstone
limestone
shale
depth

Pore pressure distribution, top of OP zone

depth

v
z

Some Additional Comments

Casing shoes are set in shales (98%)


The LOT value reflects the higherhmin in
the shales, therefore a higher PF
As we drill deeper, through sands, the
actual hmin value is less! By as much as 1
ppg in some regions
Can be unsafe, particularly when we
increase MW rapidly at the top of the OP
zone
You should test this using FIT while drilling

Examination of a Typical
Synthetic OP Case

Particularly Difficult OP Case


2.0 (16.7 ppg)

1.0 (8.33 ppg)

Deep water drilling,


mud heavier than H2O

Thick soft sediments


section, PF ~ h ~ v

Thin, shallow, gascharged sand


Zone where h is
roughly unchanged
Sharp transition zone
High OP, 90% of v

Sea water depth 800 m


1

800 m soft sediments


2000 m medium stiff
shales and silts

po

seal
4
1400 m OP zone

sharp
transition

Reversion
zone
Z kilometers (3279 ft/km)

Deep zone of stress


and pressure reversion

Upper Part of Hole


1.0 (8.33 ppg)

2.0 (16.7 ppg)

0
9.16 ppg
10.0 ppg

Sea water - 800 m

1
800 m soft sediments

Medium stiff
shales and silts
Z kilometers (3279 ft/km)

The vertical lines are


several MW choices
Riser and first csg. MW
9.16 ppg does not
control gas, but only
fractures above 950 m
10.0 ppg controls gas,
but losses above 1200 m
will be a problem. It
does allow deeper drlg.
Solution, riser seat at
~1000 m
Casing shoe at ~1400 m

Riser Issues in this Example

Sea water is ~ 1.03 ~8.6 ppg


At great depth, MW may be as high as 2.02
(17 ppg) if the riser is exposed fully
The pressure at the riser bottom is very
large: 800m 9.81 (2.02 1.03) = 7.8 MPa
The riser must be designed to take this
Or, special sea-floor level equipment must
be installed
Special mud lift systems from the sea
floor, etc.

Approaching the Transition Zone


2.0 (16.7 ppg)

1.0 (8.33 ppg)

Sea water - 800 m

800 m soft sediments

2000 m shales
and silts

po

sharp
transition

OP zone
Z kilometers (3279 ft/km)

LOT of 1.3, 10.83 ppg


This limits us to 3.6 km
for the next casing
However, this will
require a liner to go
through transition zone
Liner from 3600 m to
3750 3800 m
If it is possible to drill
100 m deeper initially,
to 3700 m, we may save
the liner ($1,000,000)

Solution A: Casing or Liners


2.0 (16.7 ppg)

1.0 (8.33 ppg)

Sea water

2000 m shales
and silts

po

OP zone
Z kilometers (3279 ft/km)

This is the most


conservative, safest,
and the most costly
Black line is MWmax
If shale problems
occur in the 1.6-3.6 km
shale zone, requiring
an extra casing (i.e.,
little margin for error)

Soln B: Drill OB With LCM?


2.0 (16.7 ppg)

1.0 (8.33 ppg)

Sea water

2000 m shales
and silts

po

Dashed line is from


the previous slide
Drilling with the purple
line, saves a liner!
This is ~1.2 ppg OB at
the shoe (quite a bit!)

OP zone
Z kilometers (3279 ft/km)

Place upper casings


deeper if possible
Drill with LCM in mud
(see analysis approach
in Additional Materials)
Place a denser pill at
final casing trip
(Approach with caution)

Solution C: Deeper Upper Casings


2.0 (16.7 ppg)

1.0 (8.33 ppg)

Sea water

Slight OB
needed

po

4
Z kilometers (3279 ft/km)

OP zone

300 m subsea primary


casing depth
Casing at 1850 m depth
Drill long shale section
with MW shown as
dashed black line
Increase MW only in
last 100 m (LCM to plug
ballooning at the shoe)
Slight OB of 0.2-0.3
ppg needed
Casing may be saved (?)

Deeper Upper Casing Shoes

Depending on the profile of OP stresses


and pressures, this approach can be
effective, but in some cases it is not
Of course, the best approach is always to
place the shoes as deeply as possible
This may give us a one-string advantage
deeper in the well if problems encountered
At shallow depths (mudline to ~4000 ft),
use published correlations with caution
because there are few good LOT data

Comments on the Approaches

There is risk associated with saving a


casing string: risks must be well-managed
The stress/pressure distribution sketched
is a particularly difficult case:
Shallow

pressured gas seam at 1500 m subsea


PF (h) is quite low around 3000 m subsea
Transition

zone is very sharp (~250 m)


OP is high (88-90% of v)

However, it could even be worse!


More
Etc

gas zones, depleted reservoirs at 3.6 km

Drilling Through a Reversion Zone

Below OP, usually a zone where po, h (PF)


gradually revert to normal values. This is
rarely a sharp transition as at top of OP
This is related to fractured shales that
bleed off OP (i.e. lower OP seal is gone)
Also, when shales change and shrink, the h
value (PF) drops as well
Reverse internal blowout possibility
Blowout

higher in hole
Fracturing lower in hole

Stress Reversion at Depth


stress (or pressure)
vertical stress, v
horizontal stress, h
pore pressure, po
Note that hmin can become > v
4 km
depth

Region of strong
overpressure
Higher k rocks
(fractured shales)

Stresses revert to
more ordinary state

Same Example
2.0 (16.7 ppg)

1.0 (8.33 ppg)

1400 m OP zone

5
Reversion
zone

po
Z kilometers (3279 ft/km)

OP casing was set at


3800 m depth
Drill with 16.7 ppg MW
At 5.5 km, large losses
If we reduce MW,
high po at 4.6 km can
blow out, flow to
bottom hole at 5.5 km
(reverse internal BO)
Set casing at 5450 m
Drill ahead with
reduced MW

Real Deep Overpressure Drilling

This is a deep North Sea case, west of Shetlands

Watch out for shallow


gas sands
Dark black line: MWmax
for the interval
Dashed black line is
the actual drilling MW
Red stars: excessive
shale caving, blowouts
Green stars: ballooning
and losses
Surface casing string
not drawn on figure

Detecting OP Before Drilling

Seismic stratigraphy and velocity analysis


Anomalously

low velocities, high attenuations


Can often detect shallow gas-charged sands
(unless they are really thin, < 3-5 m)

Geological expectations (right conditions,


right type of basin and geological history)
Offset well data, good earth model, so
that lateral data extension is reliable

Detecting OP While Drilling

Changes in the Dr exponent, penetration


rate may increase rapidly in OP zone
Changes in seismic velocity (tP increases)
Changes in porosity of the cuttings
(surface measurements or from MWD)
Changes in the resistivity of shales from
the basin trend lines
Changes in the SP log
Changes in drill chip and cavings shapes,
also volumes if MW < po
Mud system parameters, etc

Comments on LWD

Methods of data transmission


Mud pulse 2 bits/s @ 30,000, 12-25 b/s
is good at any depth
Issues in data transmission:
Long

wells, extended reach


OBM, electrical noise, drilling noise
ID changes in the drill string
Pump harmonics, stick/slip sources

Wire pipe extremely expensive


High rate on out-trip, then download on rig
New technologies will likely emerge soon

Reasons for Pore Press. Prediction


Drilling Problems Due to Pressure Imbalance:
Overbalance:

Slow drilling, Differential


Sticking, Lost circulation, Masked shows,
Formation damage.

Underbalance:

Imprudently fast drilling,


Pack- offs, Sloughing shales, Kicks,
Blowouts.

Pore Pressure Prediction Basics I

Data from offset wells


Logs,

Dr data, sonics, neutron porosity,


resistivity, etc.

Transfer data to new well stratigraphy, z


Plot

v gradient, sonic transit time, Dr,


resistivity, porosity, etc. with depth

Use trend analyses and published methods,


to determine the normal compaction line
Use an Eaton correlation chart if you have
it for this area (use offset and other data)
This is the prognosis profile for new well

Pore Pressure Prediction Basics II

With seismic data and geological model of


the new well region, assess:
Existence

of OB conditions (seals, sources)


Existence of faults, salt tectonic features

Plot depth corrected velocities on profile:


Carefully compare the two:
Lower

velocities = greater OP risk


Explain existence of any undercompacted zones
and anomalies you have identified

You now have as good a prognosis as you


can develop with existing data

Sonic Transit Time Differences


1.0 (8.33 ppg)

2.0 (16.7 ppg)

650 s/m

Sea water depth 800 m


1

Soft seds.

Stiff shales
and silts

po
seal

PROGNOSES FROM
OFFSET WELL
DATA, CORRECTED
FOR Z, ETC

6
Z kilometers (3279 ft/km)

Log of sonic transit time

Expected OP
transition

OP zone
Reversion
zone

Normal trend from the


basin, offset data
Seismic
velocity
model
Sonic transit time
from offset wells
Critical region

Prognoses Based on Seismics


Normal compaction line for
the basin
General seismic profile data,
depth corrected for new well
Corrected sonic transit time,
calibrated with the general
seismic velocity data
OP beginning

Large OP expected

Regions of substantial
deviation are highlighted as
critical, experience used to
choose likely top of OP
OP magnitude estimated,
based on correlations

Seismic Cross-Sections

Depth Converted
1:1 Horizontal / Vertical Ratio
Offset Well Ties (Regional)
Planned Wellbore (Local)

Full Structural Picture


Fully Annotated
Radial Animation

North Sea Seismic Section - Diapir


1b

Well A
Gas Pull Down

Mid-Miocene regional pressure boundary

Top Balder
Top Chalk
Intra Hod/Salt

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

Other Trend Line Approaches

Methods exist for using trend analysis for


many different measures, including:
Drilling

exponent data
Resistivity trends lines (salinity of strata)
Deviations from expected porosity (less
sensitive)
SP log characteristics
Perhaps some others

Shale data are used because sand porosity


is less predictable in general

Gas Cutting of the Drilling Mud

Shale behaves plastically at elevated


pressure and temperature gradients.
Significance (and insignificance) of gas cut
mud (GCM). Gas from CH4 in shales?
Very large gas units: 2,000 to 4,000 units ?
Connection gas (CG) - better indicator. Use
it for well to talk. Ineffective when too
much overbalance.
CG increase from 20, 40, 60 to 80 points.
Yes, you are underbalanced.

Is MW a Pressure Indicator?

No. The lower limits of MW in most OP


regimes are related to shale stability,
rather than to pore pressure
Usually, in difficult shales, 1 to 2 ppg above
po is needed to control excessive shale
problems
HOWEVER! MW limits from offset well
drilling logs are useful to estimate MWmin
Of course, this can change as well:
More

inhibited WBM, using OBM instead, etc


Faster drilling, less exposure, etc

MWmin Prognosis

Offset well pressure,


stress, drilling data

Estimate target MWmin


for new well prognosis

If this generates too


narrow a MW window,
assess approaches

Will OBM allow a lower


MWmin? (on the plot, the
dashed blue line is the
estimated OBM MW for
shale stability)

Other factors?

MWmin, MWmax Well Prognosis


2.0 (16.7 ppg)

1.0 (8.33 ppg)

Sea water depth 800 m

Soft seds.
Weak rocks
Stiff shales
and silts

po
PROGNOSES FROM
OFFSET WELL
DATA, CORRECTED
FOR Z, ETC
Strong rocks

6
Z kilometers (3279 ft/km)

Expected OP
transition

OP zone
Reversion
zone

Use a rock mechanics


borehole stability model,
calibrated, to estimate
MWmin from geophysical
logs and lab data
Use offset well losses,
ballooning, LOT, etc. to
estimate MWmin
This defines the local
safe MW window
Now, combine with casing
program prognosis to plan
the MW for the well

During Drilling

Remember, in OP drilling we are trying to


push the envelope to reduce casings
Update the well prognosis regularly with
actual LOT, MWD, ECD data
Monitor, measure, observe
Kick

tolerances, ballooning behavior, gas cuts


Chip morphology and volumes
Flow rate gauges on flowline, pumps
Mud temperature monitoring MWD temperature
Sticky pipe, torque, ECD, mud pressure
fluctuations
Cuttings analyses: vP, Brinnell hardness are used

Increasing Depth of Casing Shoe


(2.0 = 16.7 ppg) 1.1

1.3

1.5

1.7

prognosis
for hmin
prognosis
for po

1.9

2.1

area indicates
possible MW

depth

density, g/cm3

MW
=1.92
v

XLOT hmin
value
overpressure
transition zone

2.3

Previous
casing
string

shoe
deeper shoe for
casing string!
strong overpressure zone

Using high weight trip pills and careful monitoring, the lower limit can be extended

High Weight Trip Pills

Drill ahead beyond limit (if shales permit)


with MW = LOT at the shoe PF

Some gas cutting of the mud and shale


sloughing If too severe, casing
For trip, set a pill of higher weight
This creates a change in slope of the mud
pressure line in the window (see figure)
Pull out carefully, no swabbing please
Set casing (best with top drive and some
ability to pump casing down a bit)
Unlikely to succeed with gas sands present

An OP Well Prognosis
PORE PRESSURE (PPG)
EXPECTED MW (PPG)
FRAC GRAD. (SAND)
FRAC. GRAD (SHALE)

WELL DESIGN - HI 133 No. 1


MW, PF, & EST. po

DEPTH - ft

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000

10

11

12

13

MUD WEIGHT - ppg

14

15

16

17

18

19

Same Overpressured Well, GoM


WELL DESIGN - HI 133 No. 1
MW, PF, & ESTIMATED po
0
1000
2000

PORE PRESSURE (PPG)


EXPECTED MW (PPG)
FRAC GRAD. (SAND)
FRAC. GRAD (SHALE)

3000
4000

DEPTH

5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000

10

11

12

13

14

MUD WEIGHT

15

16

17

18

19

Approach for this Well - I

From 8600to 9400po goes from 9.5 ppg to


15.7 ppg (1.14 1.89 g/cm3)!
A liner over a 800-1200length is necessary,
but we dont want to install a second liner
Strategy:
Below

the 3000 shoe, drill as close to po as


possible, as fast as possible to avoid shale issues
Below 8200, weight up while drlg. to as high as
possible (upper part of hole will be overbalanced)
This is a case where we may add carefully graded
LCM to help build a stress-cage higher in the hole
Drill as deep as possible, hopefully to 9100

Approach for this Well - II

Strategy (contd)
Push

the envelope for depth, managing your ECD


carefully, living with a bit of ballooning
To trip out and case, place a high density pill for
safety (e.g. 18 ppg mud for bottom 1500)
Set casing (partly cemented only) at 9100-9200
Mud up to MW slightly higher than po, drill out, do
XLOT, advance carefully, gradually increasing MW
Set a liner as deep as possible, 9900 if possible
Mud up before drilling out with 16.5 ppg mud with
carefully designed LCM to strengthen the hole
Do a precision XLOT, drill ahead to TD, increasing
MW only as required

Deep Water Drilling & Stability

Narrow operating window is common


Circulating risks, ECDs, monitoring.
Special mud rheology: low T, riser cools the
mud massively, down to 5-10 is common
Casing design often requires many short
casing strings, shallow muds, overpressure,
and the zone of pressure reversion
Well control is tricky because of the
narrow window, long risers, etc
Rig positioning and emergency disconnect
critical for safety (no circulation for days)

Gullfaks
North Sea case

Overpressure
Reversion zone
Depletion effect

Franklin Field, UK West Sector

120-130 MPa po in deep Triassic zones

T to 200-211C measured
6300 m deep (~20,000 feet)
Mud weights of 18-19 ppg required
Very narrow MW window near reservoir
Retrograde condensate field, liquids are
generated near the well, reducing k
Surface pres. up to 101 MPa (15000 psi)!
Reservoir experienced rapid depletion and
this led to very high effective stresses, as
well as massively reduced lateral stresses

Lessons Learned

OP drilling: a major challenge, particularly:


In

young offshore basins


In deep water (riser length issues)

Careful well prognoses are critical (PF, po)

Prognoses must be updated while drilling


The envelope can be pushed!

Living

with breakouts for lower MW


Using LCM to generate somewhat higher P F
Special

trip practices, special equipment

In OP drilling, vigilance is absolutely critical


Increase

your observations, understand them

Additional Materials
Also, visit the following website for a
comprehensive list of formulae for
your pressure calculations in drilling:
http://www.tsapts.com.au/formulae_sheets.htm

Fracture Pressure Enhancement in


Drilling Through Use of Limited
Entry Fracturing and Propping
Courtesy of:
Francesco Sanfilippo
Geomec a.s., Norway

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

The Concept
To enhance fracturing pressure by drilling slightly
overbalance and, at the same time, by effectively
plugging and sealing the induced hydraulic fractures
Already plugged
Induced fracture

Not plugged

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

How Can this be Analyzed?


1. Find a simple description of this process
1. First-order physics
2. Estimate the fracturing pressure enhancement
3. Evaluate the importance of the involved
factors and identify the first-order parameters

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

Methodology
1. Estimate the enhancement through the
classical results (England and Green equation)
2. Modify the Perkins-Kern-Nordgren model to
take into account the effect of progressive
plugging

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

Classical results
England and Greens equation can be used once the
geometrical parameters of the fracture are known.
It estimates the hoop stress increase from the
mechanical properties of the rock and and the geometrical
parameters of the fracture
Two shapes have been considered:
Penny shape-like fractures
PKN-like fractures (length>>height)

Base case for the parametric study:


Young modulus: 40 GPa
Poissons ratio: 0.2
Fracture width: 3 mm
Fracture height/radius: 10 m

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

Classical results: effect of the Young modulus


18

PKN
Penny Shape

16

Hoop stress increase (MPa)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

20

40

60

Young modulus (GPa)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

80

100

120

Classical results: effect of the Poisson coefficient


8

PKN
Penny Shape

Hoop stress increase (MPa)

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Poisson coefficient

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Classical results: effect of the fracture width


12

PKN
Penny Shape

Hoop stress increase (MPa)

10

0
0

Fracture width (mm)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

Classical results: effect of the fracture height


40

PKN
Penny Shape

Hoop stress increase (MPa)

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
0

20

40

60

Fracture height/radius (m)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

80

100

120

Modified PKN model


With this model the geometrical parameters of the
fracture are estimated according to the measurements
while drilling
Plugging is considered through a reduction of the
fracture permeability with time up to complete sealing
Base case for the parametric study:
Youngs modulus: 40 GPa
Poissons ratio: 0.2
Mud viscosity: 5 cP
Mud loss rate: 1 bbl/min
Time required to plug the fracture at a given depth: 30 min
Rate Of Penetration: 10 m/hr

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

Modified PKN model: fracture aperture vs. time


4

Fracture width at wellbore (mm)

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0

10

15

time (min)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

20

25

30

Modified PKN model: effect of Young modulus


30.0

Hoop stress increase (MPa)

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0

20

40

60

Young Modulus (GPa)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

80

100

Modified PKN model: effect of Poisson coefficient


18.0
16.0

Hoop stress increase (MPa)

14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Poisson coefficient

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Modified PKN model: effect of mud viscosity


25.0

Hoop stress increase (MPa)

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0

10

15

20

25

Mud viscosity (cP)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

30

35

40

45

Modified PKN model: effect of mud loss rate


30.0

Hoop stress increase (MPa)

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0

Mud loss rate (bbl/min)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

Modified PKN model: effect of plugging time


100.0
90.0

Hoop stress increase (MPa)

80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0

10

20

30

40

Plugging time (min)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

50

60

70

Modified PKN model: effect of Rate of penetration


120.0

Hoop stress increase (MPa)

100.0

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0
0

10

15

Rate Of Penetration (m/hr)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.

20

25

Role and Design of Plugging Material

The plugging material is a mixture of mud


clay, barite, formation debris (cuttings),
plus carefully sized LCM
It plugs the induced fracture rapidly, and
is increased permanently by propping

The effect is limited in extent, but the


stress does not relax during drilling

The LCM is designed (concentration, size


range) based on the mud parameters
: www.geomec.com for further details