Reservoir Geomechanics

In situ stress and rock mechanics applied to reservoir processes

Mark D.
Professor of



Zoback

Geophysics




Week 5 Lecture 10 Failure of Deviated

Wells Chapter 8

Outline
Section 1
Failure of Deviated Wells
Determination of Stress from Failure of Deviated
Wells
Section 2
Distinguishing Drilling-induced Tensile Fractures
from Natural Fractures
Section 3
Determination of Stress Orientation from Shear
Velocity Anisotropy Measured with Dipole Sonic
Logs
2

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Some Key Points

Failure depends on magnitude of all 3 principal stresses and the
orientation of the well relative to the stress field.
Observations of failure in deviated wells is a powerful technique of
constraining the magnitudes and orientations of principal stresses
Tensile fractures (often appearing as en echelon sets) are expected to be
fairly common in inclined wells. The good news is that they do not affect
hole stability and are extremely useful for assessing the in situ stress
state. The bad news is that they could be mis-interpreted as natural preexisting fractures.
There are a number of aspects of inclined well failure that may be counterintuitive. Trust your intuition at your own risk. For example, the initiation
of failure and the severity of failure may not be correlative (Chapter 10).

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Borehole Wall Stresses

Figure 8.1 a pg. 237

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Principal Stresses at the Wellbore Wall

Figure 8.1 c pg. 237

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Breakouts in Deviated Wells

SHmax
azimuth
145

55/235

vertical
well

100/280
tangential
stress

100/280
well inclined 70
at an azimuth of
280
6

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Tensile Fractures in Deviated Wells

North

Azi

East

Borehole image
Horizontal

posTF

Fracture trace

Dev
Bottom side

incTF

incTF
Wall fracture

posTF
Bottom
Down

Top

Bottom

Hole axis

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Wellbore Coordinate System

Figure 8.1 b pg. 237

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Stresses at the Wall of an Arbitrarily Oriented Wellbore 1

Far-Field Stress Tensor

"S1 0 0 %
$
'
Ss = $ 0 S 2 0 '
$
'
# 0 0 S3 &

" xs %
" X%
$ '
$ '
$ ys ' = Rs $ Y '
$ '
$ '
# zs &
# Z&

&
cos cos
sin cos
(
Rs = (cos sin sin sin cos sin sin sin + cos cos
(
' cos sin cos + sin sin sin sin cos cos sin

Equations 8.1-8.3 pg. 238

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

sin )
+
cos sin +
+
cos cos *

Stresses at the Wall of an Arbitrarily Oriented Wellbore 2

" xb %
" X%
$ '
$ '
y
=
R
b $ Y'
$ b'
$ '
$ '
z
# b&
# Z&
Sg = RTs SsRs

Sb = RbRTs SsRsRTb

ij = Sij ij Pp

% cos cos
'
Rb = ' sin
'
& cos sin

sin cos sin (

*
cos
0 *
*
sin sin cos )

zz = 33 2 (11 22 )cos 2 412 sin 2

= 11 + 22 2(11 22 )cos 2 412 sin 2 P

z = 2( 23 cos 13 sin )

rr = P
Equations 8.4-8.7 pg. 238

10

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Stresses at the Wall of an Arbitrarily Oriented Wellbore 3

t max

1&
= (zz + +
2'

t min

1&
= (zz +
2'

(zz )
(zz )

)
+ 4 +
*
2
z

)
+ 4 +
*
2
z

rr = P

Equations 8.8 pg. 239

11

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Representing Drilling Trajectories

Figure 8.1 d pg. 237

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

12

Tendency for Breakout Initiation for

Different Stress Regimes*

3 km Depth, Hydrostatic Pp

Figure 8.2 a,b,c pg. 240

*Dont use this plot for wellbore stability

13

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Tendency for Tensile Fracturing for

Different Stress Regimes*

3 km Depth, Hydrostatic Pp
*Dont use this plot for lost circulation
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Figure 8.3 a,b,c pg. 241

14

Visund Field

15

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Constraining Stress Magnitudes

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Figure 8.10 pg. 250

16

Stress Magnitudes

17

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Disappearing Tensile Fractures Confirm SHmax Magnitudes

Figure 8.9 a,b pg. 249

18

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Breakout Orientation With Deviation Direction

and Azimuth

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Figure 8.5 a,b pg. 244

19

Tensile Fracture Orientation and Well Deviation

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Figure 8.5 c,d pg. 244

20

Failure Orientation as Function of Deviation

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Figure 8.4 a,b pg. 243

21

Estimating Stress and Rock Strength from Observations

of Breakouts in Inclined Wells
Observations of failure in inclined boreholes are extremely
valuable for assessment of in situ stress and strength
1. Because failure depends on magnitude of all 3 principal stresses and the
orientation of the well relative to the stress field, the following is often
determinable with observations of only the orientation of failure in a
single deviated well:
Known
Shmin
Stress Orientation

Determinable
SHmax magnitude and Stress Orientation
Shmin and SHmax magnitudes

2. Observations in multiple wells are very helpful as long as you are confident
that the stress field is uniform (both stress orientation and magnitudes) .
3. Once stress magnitudes have been constrained, it is possible to estimate
upper (and lower) bounds of compressive rock strength.
22

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

South Eugene Island Pathfinder Stress Study

Observations
Wellbore breakouts 17 (clock-wise) from the bottom of well

Wellbore azimuth of 35

Wellbore inclination of 32

Sv = 42.9 MPa (density log)

Shmin = 37.1 MPa (leak-off test)

Pp = 29.0 MPa (equal to mud weight)

Objective

To find an azimuth and magnitude of SHmax which are consistent


with the observations above.

23

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Pathfinder Stress

(psi)

(psi)

24

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

South Eugene Island, Block 330 Area

Figure 8.11 b pg. 252

25

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Key Seating in Deviated Wells, GOM Example

26

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Drilling Induced Tensile Fractures KTB

Pilot Hole, Germany

Figure 8.6 a,b pg. 245

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

27

Development of En Echelon Tensile Fractures

Figure 8.7 a,b,c pg. 246

28

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Modeling Drilling-Induced Tensile Fractures

Geothermal Well, Japan

Figure 8.8 a,b pg. 248

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

29

Known Parameters
Brazil 5819m TVD (6110m MD)

30

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Brazil 5819m TVD (6110m MD).

Modified Lade Criteria for breakouts

31

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Tensile Fractures and SHmax Orientation

SHMax. 00

SHMax. 90

SHMax. 30

SHMax. 120

SHMax. 60

SHMax. 150

32

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

SHMax Azimuth = 120 deg

33

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Outline
Section 1
Failure of Deviated Wells
Determination of Stress from Failure of Deviated
Wells
Section 2
Distinguishing Drilling-induced Tensile Fractures
from Natural Fractures
Section 3
Determination of Stress Orientation from Shear
Velocity Anisotropy Measured with Dipole Sonic
Logs
34

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Natural Fractures, Drilling Induced Fractures and

Drilling Enhanced Fractures

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Figure 8.12 a,b,c pg. 253

35

Development of En Echelon Tensile Fractures

Figure 8.7 a,b,c pg. 246

36

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Theoretical Tensile Fracture Growth

Figure 8.13 a pg. 254

37

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Drilling Induced Tensile Wall Fracture, Argentina

Figure 8.13 b pg. 254

38

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Drilling Induced Tensile Wall Fractures

Soultz, France

Figure 8.13 c pg. 254

39

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Drilling Enhanced Fractures

40

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Outline
Section 1
Failure of Deviated Wells
Determination of Stress from Failure of Deviated
Wells
Section 2
Distinguishing Drilling-induced Tensile Fractures
from Natural Fractures
Section 3
Determination of Stress Orientation from Shear
Velocity Anisotropy Measured with Dipole Sonic
Logs
41

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Shear Velocity Anisotropy

Shear velocity anisotropy
has been studied widely
in seismology
Reflection Seismology
Cross-Dipole Logs
Earthquake
Seismology
But what controls shear
velocity anisotropy?

Bedding?
Stress?
Fractures?
42

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Stress-induced anisotropy
Highly disordered system

Preferential closure of
fractures in response to SHmax
Stress parallel fast direction
Decreasing anisotropy with
depth as stress increases.

43

Structural anisotropy
Highly ordered system

Aligned macroscopic features

(e.g., fault fabric or bedding)
Fast direction parallel to
structure

44

Dipole Sonic Shear Logs

Measure Anisotropy in Plane
Normal to the Wellbore

Structure
Stress

UBI and FMI Logs

45

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Stress Induced Acoustic Anisotropy, Compared

to Borehole Breakout Orientations
FEET

(us/ft)

SLOW SHEAR
SLOWNESS

240

ANISOTROPY
[ani]
40

AZIMUTHAL ANISOTROPY MAP

AVG. ANISOTROPY
[ania]

40

40

(ANISOTROPY %)

(%)

7400

(us/ft)

360

(%)

Arab D3B

40

STRATIGRAPHY COLUMN

FAST SHEAR
SLOWNESS

240

Average Anisotropy Azimuth

7404

N69
7411
7417

Arab D4

7425

N63
7423.5

7433

N64
7439

46

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Scott Field

Figure 8.14 pg. 257

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

47

Comparison of Stress Orientations

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Figure 8.15 a,b pg. 258

48

Stress and Shear Anisotropy

SAFOD Pilot Hole

(Boness & Zoback, GRL, 2004)

49

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

What will be the affect of bedding on cross-dipole

logging data?

Figure 8.16 pg. 259

50

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Sedimentary Bedding
Electrical Conductivity Image

Bed Orientation

2000

Depth (m)

2200

SAF
strike

2400
2600
2800
3000

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

51

Effect of Anisotropy on Well Logs

Figure 8.17 a,b,c pg. 260

52

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Apparent Fast Directions

For a borehole with azimuth from North, , and inclination from the
vertical, , the vector, Bn that defines the axis of the borehole from an
arbitrary origin is given by:
2

Bn = sin( ) 1 + sin I

cos( ) 1 + sin I

2

sin I
2

Equation 8.9 pg. 261

where all angles are in radians. Given the dip, d, and dip direction,
, of the true fast plane we compute three discrete points, F1, F2 and
F3, in the fast plane that has a corner at the origin used to define the
borehole. The normal to the fast plane, Fn, may now be computed
using A = F1 - F2 and B = F2 - F3 , thus giving

Fn = A B
The vector, a, that describes the apparent fast direction, ad (defined to
be in the dip direction), and the apparent fast dip, a, from the origin is
then found by computing the line that is perpendicular to the borehole
and perpendicular to the normal to the fast plane (i.e. in the fast plane)
such that

a
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

= Bn Fn

53

Bedding Plane Geometry and Anisotropy

Figure 8.18 pg. 262

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

54

Anisotropy in SAFOD Main Borehole

Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu

Boness & Zoback 55

Submitted to Geophysics