Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 24593

Accurate In-Situ Stress Measurements During Drilling Operations

K.R. Kunze and R.P. Steiger, Exxon Production Research Co.
SPE Members

Copyright 1992, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentationat the 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Washington. DC, October 4-7, 1992.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author@).Contents of the paper,
BS presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(@.The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
Of Petroleum Engineers. Permissionto copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than w o r d . Illustrations may not be copied. The a b s t r a p g m e n t
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 750834836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

Abstract Leung 1990). The equations can now be applied

This paper describes easily implemented field
procedures for obtaining in situ horizontal earth
stresses during drilling operations. The procedures
were developed to obtain stress data that are necessary
for wellbore stability modeling and for predicting and
avoiding fracturing lost returns. Conventional leakoff
tests are performed routinely to test the integrity of
casing cement jobs, not to accurately measure earth
stresses. The most important consideration was to
develop methods that were easy to implement and
would minimize disturbance to drilling operations,
thereby promoting acceptance among operations
personnel. The procedures are called Extended
Leakoff Tests (XLOT).
Introduction
Over the past several years, increasing effort has been
directed toward developing methods to preserve
wellbore stability during drilling, particularly in water
sensitive, weak shales. Early research focussed on the
chemical aspects, but recognition of the chemical and
mechanical interactions that take place during drilling
is increasing. In this framework, drilling fluid density
is an important design element, and a knowledge of
earth stresses and rock strength is required.
Linear elastic equations for calculating stresses at
wellbore walls are well known (Hubbert and Willis
1957, Bradley 1979), but were limited in their
application by the absence of data on the in situ
strength of shales. This began to change with the
development of methods for determining downhole
shale strength from cuttings analysis (Steiger and
49 1
quantitatively to design drilling fluid densities that
stabilize inherently weak shales. This modeling
approach requires cuttings analyses, pore pressure and
stress data to produce a chart that prescribes stable
wellbore mud weight vs. depth (Figure 1). Widespread
application of this technology within Exxon prompted
the development of improved field methods to obtain
the stress data necessary for computer modeling of
wellbore failure.
Extensive research has been dedicated to horizontal
stress measurement in wells (Haimson 1988). Methods
include microfracturing (Fairhurst 1968), as well as
more complicated multiple fracture generation (Cornet
and Valette 1984) and holographic strain relaxation
measurements (Smither, Schmitt and Ahrens 1988).
However, the consensus is that low volume hydraulic
fracturing (microfracturing) is still the most practical
and reliable method for deeper wells.
We sought to obtain higher quality data for stress
analysis by modifying pressure integrity tests (PIT'S) to
incorporate current fracturing principles. Pressure
integrity tests taken to leakoff at freshly cemented
casing shoes are essentially microfracturing tests,
although the data are often of insufficient quality to
allow measurement of stresses. In order to promote
acceptance of the modifie'd procedures, a key concern
was to minimize disturbance to drilling operations.
Conventional Leakoff Tests
Drilling leakoff tests are done immediately beneath
cemented casing in order to test the integrity of the set
cement and determine the drilling fluid density that
2 Accurate In-Situ Stress Measurements During Drilling Operations
can be withstood by the formation. The bottom of the
casing is usually set in shale.
After waiting the appropriate time for the cement to
harden, 10-20 feet of fresh formation are drilled, and
drilling fluid is pumped into the wellbore at a constant
rate between 114 - 1 barrellmin (0.04 - 0.16 m31min).
Pumping continues until the rate of pressure increase
slows, indicating formation breakdown (Figure 2).
After breakdown, pumping ceases, the formation is
shut in, and pressure decrease is monitored for 10
minutes. Linear elastic calculations suggest that the
resulting fracture is about 25 feet in diameter for a half
barrel of fluid injected into the formation. This size
has been confirmed by observations of induced
fractures recovered in cores (Daneshy, Slusher,
Chisholm, and Magee 1986).
The practice of microfracturing during leakoff testing
offers the opportunity to obtain stress data. However,
conventional leakoff tests are generally lacking in the
following respects:
Equation (1) is generally used to estimate the
maximum horizontal stress. This equation requires
tensile strength (7') to estimate the maximum
stress, amax, using the minimum stress (omin). the
breakdown pressure (Pw) and the pore pressure
Po):
Tensile strength is rarely known, and assuming it
to be negligible may not always be true, unless the
formation was pre-fractured. Most conventional
leakoff tests consist of one cycle, whereas at least
two cycles are necessary for a pre-fractured
condition to exist.
Pressure data are only recorded every half barrel
or every minute, which is insufficient for
identifying subtle pressure changes that might
indicate incipient breakdown or fracture closure.
Minimum stress is identified at fracture closure.
Pressure decrease after shut in is usually measured
over a 10 minute duration, which may not be long
enough for some fractures to close.
Accurate drilling fluid density measurements are
essential for calculating downhole pressures if
surface pressure data are measured. Routine
density measurements are usually not made under
SPE 24593
pressure, allowing entrained air to influence
measurements. When oil based fluids are used,
the surface density can be expected to be different
from downhole density.
In the absence of specially designed leakoff tests, we
occasionally have the benefit of conventional leakoff
data of sufficiently high quality to enable calculation
of horizontal in situ stresses, especially the minimum
stress. Figure 3 shows four successive leakoff cycles,
the final one after a remedial cementing operation
intended to raise the breakdown resistance of the
casing seat. Multiple cycles in succession are
uncommon and are usually run if there is doubt about
cement integrity. In this case, a higher leakoff
pressure was expected, but earth stress was shown to
be the limitation. The point at which pressure
decrease markedly slows is usually taken to indicate
fracture closure and the minimum horizontal stress.
From the four cycles, the minimum stress could be
consistently identified (Table 1) in cycles 2-4. The
fracture initiation or opening pressures for the first two
cycles were consistent (Table I), but decreased in
cycles 3 and 4, possibly because of increasing fracture
conductivity that allowed fluid to penetrate the
stressed zone around the wellbore.
The last cycle, conducted after cement was injected or
"squeezed" into the formation, exhibited the lowest
breakdown of all, although the minimum stress was
consistent. Remedial cementing was not appropriate
in this case where in situ stresses were responsible for
lower than expected leakoff pressure.
Extended Leakoff Tests
In order to obtain the high quality data necessary for
accurate stress determinations, we applied hydraulic
fracturing technology to leakoff testing. The term
"Extended Leakoff Test" or XLOT was chosen to
describe the resulting procedure for obtaining high
quality horizontal stress data by applying easily
implemented modifications to standard leakoff tests.
Although usually done at casing shoes, like PIT'S, the
following modifications can be conducted in open hole
intervals to obtain a more detailed stress profile:
1. At least two and preferably three leakoff cycles
are conducted,
2. Accurate electronic pressure transducer gauges are
used to measure surface and occasionally
downhole pressure,
SPE 24593 Kenneth R. Kunze & Ronald P. Steiger
3. After shut-in, pressure decrease is monitored for
30 minutes,
4. Fluid densities are measured accurately and
special corrections are made for compressible oil
base fluids, unless downhole gauges are used,
5. Special plotting methods are used to extract the
fracture closure pressure.
Multiple Leakoff Cycles
To avoid the uncertainty concerning the formation
tensile strength, two or preferably three leakoff cycles
are run. Removing tensile strength with the first cycle
simplifies equation (1):
The maximum horizontal stress is calculated using
data from the second and third cycles. Running three
cycles also enhances the likelihood of identifying the
minimum stress.
Electronic Gauges
Electronic pressure transducer gauges and data
collection software capable of recording and plotting
data at 5 - 10 second intervals greatly enhance our
ability to detect the pressure changes that signal
fracture opening and closing. During development of
the procedures, downhole gauges were used to confirm
surface pressure observations. Downhole gauges are of
greatest value in a compressible oil-base drilling fluid.
XLOT data collected from a deep South Texas well
with oil-base drilling fluid is shown in Figure 4. The
casing shoe at 14,995 feet depth was fractured in four
cycles, and data were recorded with a gauge suspended
at 12,500 feet. After fracture initiation, between one
and four barrels of drilling fluid were injected to insure
communication with the far field stress.
The fracture initiation pressure decreased slightly after
each cycle (Table 2). The decrease and the indistinct
curvature in the last cycle is typical of leakoff tests
conducted with oil-base drilling fluids, and is
attributed to the poorer fracture sealing efficiency of
these fluids (Onyia, 1991).
Slope changes that indicate fracture closure and
minimum stress can be clearly identified in expanded
views of individual cycles (Figure 5). The minimum
493
3
stress data were consistent and varied less than 50 psi
among the four cycles (Table 2).
Monitoring Pressure Decrease after Shut-In
Fractures often require more than 10 minutes to close,
especially in shales where leakoff is slow. To insure
that this event is recorded, the pressure is monitored
for 30 minutes after shut-in, at least for the first cycle.
If fracture closure occurs in less time, monitoring
during subsequent periods can be shortened.
Special Plotting Methods
In an idealized pressure decrease curve, the minimum
stress corresponds to the point at which rate of pressure
decrease slows, as seen in Figure 5. However, this rate
change is often difficult to discern directly from
pressure vs time plots and may require alternative
plotting methods to identify.
A method of plotting the inverse of pressure decrease
rate against pressure has recently been proposed as
having theoretical validity. In the method, several
distinct linear regions will appear which are
correlatable with different stages of fracture closure
(Hayashi and Haimson, 1991). For example, when the
data in Figure 5 were re-plotted using this method,
several distinct regions appeared (Figure 6). With this
method, the intersection between regions I &I1 is the
point of fracture tip closure and minimum stress.
Other methods to allow identification of fracture
closure have been proposed in the past, for example,
Homer analysis (McLennan and Roegiers 1982) and
Muscat analysis (Aamodt and Kuriyagawa 1982, Lee
and Haimson 1989). These methods from reservoir
analysis have theoretical basis for rocks where Darcy's
Law governs leakoff of the fluid into the formation. In
shales, these plotting methods are no more than tools
to highlight the subtle slope change in leakoff data.
Obtaining Accurate Fluid Density
For water-base drilling fluids, surface pressure
measurements are sufficient, provided care is taken to
accurately measure fluid density. Specifically, the
well must be circulated until the drilling fluid density
is constant throughout the wellbore. Drilling fluid
density should be measured with a pressurized mud
balance (American Petroleum Institute RP 13B-2).
4 Accurate In-Situ Stress Measurements During Drilling Operations
Densities of oils are sensitive to temperature and
pressure, thus either downhole gauges or oil density
data (Peters and Chenevert 1988) must be used when
measuring stresses with an oil-base drilling fluid. In
the example shown in Figure 4, the downhole gauge
was responsible for an increase in accuracy of
0.01 psilft gradient over use of surface density.
Calculating the downhole pressure using
compressibility data (Peters and Chenevert 1988) gave
ah improvement of 0.005 psilft gradient over surface
density. In this particular example, the corrections
were not dramatic, because of the high concentration
of incompressible solids in this drilling fluid, and
because pressure and temperature effects on the fluid
density partly compensated each other. This is not
generally true.
Extended Leakoff Test Field Procedure
The following procedure is usually specified when
conducting XLOT's:
Drill out cement and 10 feet of new formation.
Rig up surface transducer to choke manifold for
annular measurements.
Circulate drilling fluid at least long enough to
receive "bottoms up" and check properties in and
out. Final density measurements are made in
triplicate with a pressurized mud balance.
Pull drill bit 10 feet into casing, hang off drill
string.
If a wireline downhole gauge is used, rig up a
pump-in sub, wireline blowout preventer, and
pressure lubricator with downhole gauge assembly
(Figure 7). Connect surface transducer to pump-in
sub for drill pipe pressure measurements.
Rig up cement pumper.
Run downhole gauge to top of bit or baffle plate
on a wireline, pull up 25 feet and hang off.
Shut in annular blowout preventer.
Pump at 114 barrel per minute (0.04 m3lmin) or
lower constant rate until pressure rise shows
definite change in rate of increase. Pump an
additional 114 barrel into formation.
SPE 24593
10. Shut in pumps and monitor pressure decrease for
30 minutes.
11. Bleed off pressure, record returned drilling fluid
volume.
12. Repeat steps 9 - 11 for cycles 2 and 3.
Openhole Stress Tests
Routine leakoff tests are intended to evaluate cement
and formation integrity at the bottom of casings. This
limitation dictates that sparse stress data be
interpolated or extrapolated over long openhole
intervals. The use of an inflatable packer to isolate the
bottom of the wellbore is an effective way to obtain
more detailed stress profiles. This method was
employed by Daneshy, 1986, to obtain stresses in
sandstones. We used an inflatable Baker-Lynes
production-injection packer to apply this method to
openhole shale stress testing. With this method, the
packer seals off the lower 20-30 feet of the open hole
for microfracturing (Figure 8).
Prior to the packer trip, test formations are identified
by cuttings analysis, including Exxon's new shale
dielectric surface area method (Steiger and Leung
1990) or measurement while drilling logs (MWD).
Since the bottom of the wellbore is freshly cut, the
likelihood of achieving a good packer seal is high. A
major advantage is that high quality fracture gradient
data are obtained in new areas from early exploration
wells.
In this example, a Baker-Lynes inflatable packer with
a suspended electronic memory gauge was set in a
moderately hydratable Pierre shale at 5090 feet. Prior
to setting the packer, drilling fluid was circulated
around the packer three times as a precaution to clean
out debris. During the third circulation, excessive
pump rate and the choke effect of the 518 inch radial
clearance between packer and formation led to an
unplanned formation breakdown. Fortunately, the
pressure record from below the packer was preserved
by the downhole gauge (Figure 9) and allowed a
breakdown pressure to be identified.
During all three subsequent injection cycles after the
packer was set, the fracture reopened at the minimum
stress, an indication that the fracture was conductive.
The first of these injection cycles is shown in
Figure 10 for surface and subsurface gauges.
SPE 24593 Kenneth R. Kunze & Ronald P. Steiger
The minimum stress data from each of the cycles was
consistent. The drilling fluid density measured at the
surface was 8.5 lbslgal (0.442 psilft), as opposed to the
fluid density of 8.73 lbslgal (0.454 psilft) measured
with the downhole gauge. Thus, stress measurements
made solely with a surface gauge would have been low
by 0.012 psilft.
Having a repeat set drilling packer mounted on the
drillstring would be a more convenient and practical
method for making multiple openhole stress
measurements. Although this technology does not
currently exist, downhole blowout preventers have
been successfully mounted on drillstrings.
Summary
Advances in wellbore stability technology have
necessitated advances in supporting data collection
technology. Procedures have been developed to
obtain the in situ stresses that are necessary to
reconstruct the downhole state of stress. The
"Extended Leakoff Test" procedures and examples
discussed in this paper illustrate how high quality
stress data can be obtained at minimum cost and with
minimum inconvenience to drilling operations. The
procedures involve innovative merging of fracturing
theory with conventional drilling leakoff test practice.
In addition to wellbore stability, they can be used to
gather data for lost circulation problems and pore
pressure prediction.
References
Aamodt, R. L., Kuriyagawa, M. "Measurement of
Instantaneous Shut In Pressure in Crystalline
Rock," Proc. Workshop XVII on Hydraulic
Fracturing Stress Measurements, U. S. National
Committee for Rock Mechanics, 1982.
American Petroleum Institute, "Recommended
Practice Standard Procedure for Field Testing
Oil-Based Drilling Fluids, API Recommended
Practice 13B-2 (RP 13B-2)" First Edition 1990,
American Petroleum Institute, Order # 811-07075.
Bradley, W. B., "Mathematical Concept-Stress
Cloud-Can Predict Borehole Failure," Oil and Gas
Jour., Feb 19,1979, pp 92-102.
Comet, F. H., Valette, B. "In Situ Stress
Determination from Hydraulic Injection Test
5
Data," Jour. Geophys. Res., 32, No. B13,
11527-11537.1984.
(5) Daneshy, A. A., Slusher, G. L., Chisholm, P. T.,
Magee, D. A., "In-Situ Stress Measurements
During Drilling," J. Pet. Tech, August 1986, pp.
891-898.
(6) Fairhurst, C., "Methods of Determining In-Situ
Rock Stresses at Great Depth," TRI-68 Missouri
River Div., Corps of Engineer, February, 1968.
(7) Haimson, B. C., "Status of in situ stress
determination methods," Proc. 29th U. S.
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, pp. 75-84,
Rotterdam:Balkema, 1988.
(8) Hayashi, K., Haimson, B. C., "Characteristics of
Shut-in Curves in Hydraulic Fracturing Stress
Measurements and Determination of in Situ
Minimum Compressive Stress," J. Geophys Res.,
Vol. 96, No. B11, October 10, 1991, pp. 18311-
18321.
(9) Hubbert, M. K., Willis, D. G., "Mechanics of
Hydraulic Fracturing," SPE Trans AIME, 210,
1957, pp 175-188.
(lO)McLennan, J. D., Roegiers, J. C., "Do
Instantaneous Shut In Pressures Accurately
Represent the Minimum Principle Stress?", Roc.
Workshop XVII on Hydraulic Fracturing Stress
Measurements, U. S. National Committee for
Rock Mechanics, 1982.
(11) Onyia, E. C. ,"An Analysis of Experimental Data
on Lost Circulation Problems While Drilling with
Oil-Base Mud," SPE paper 22581, 66th Annual
Technical Conference of SPE, Dallas, Tx, October
6-9, 1991.
(12)Peters, E. J., Chenevert, M. E., "A Model for
Predicting the Density of Oil Muds at High
Pressures and Temperatures," SPE paper 18036,
63rd Annual Technical Conference of SPE,
Houston, Tx., October 2-5, 1988.
(13)Smither, C. L., Schmitt, D. R., Ahrens, T. J.,
"Analysis and Modeling of Holographic
Measurements of In Situ Stress," Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., a, No. 6,
pp. 353-362, 1988.
6 Accurate In-Situ Stress Measurements During Drilling Operations SPE 24593

(14)Steiger, R. P., Leung, P. K., "Prediction of

Wellbore Stability in Shale Formations at Great
Depth," Proc. ISRM Int. Symp. Rock at Great
Depth, 1990, Vol. 3, pp. 1209-1218, Rotterdam:
Balkema.

Table 1
Horizontal Stresses from Conventional Leakoff Data (psilft)

Table 2
Horizontal Stresses from Extended Leakoff Test (psilft)

2 1.00 0,997 1.04

3 0.996 0.998 1.05
4 indistinct 0.995
Accurate In-Situ Stress Measurements During Drilling Operations SPE 24593

Depth N D (m)

2500 -
Cuttings
Analysis
Equivalent Mud Weight (Iblgal)

Figure 1. Model approach yields wellbore stability chart

VOLUME

Figure 2. Idealized leakoff test pressure history

Relrtlva Time (Minuter)

Figure 3. High quality conventional leakoff data

497
 Kenneth R. Kunze & Ronald P. Steiger

At in Hours
Shutir Tuna. hwn

Figure 4. Multiple leakoff cycles in oil-base Figure 5. Slope change indicates fracture
drilling fluid closure

Prassura. psi
12520 12540 12560 12580 12600 12620 12640
0

0.0005

0.001

0.0015
' H
2
r:
0.002

0- 0.0025
5
0

I 0.003

0.0035

0.004

0.0045

Figure 6. -dT/dP plot of leakoff data Figure 7. Wellhead equipment for

wireline gauge
Accurate In-Situ Stress Measurements During Drilling Qperatipns SPE 24593

\ J

Figure 8. Configuration of inflatable packer for stress testing

Downhole Pressure, PSI

60001

I I I I
01 I

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Relative Time, sec

Figure 9. Breakdown of formation during third cleanup circulation.

PRESSURE (PSI)
4000 1 1

-XLOT #1 Surface -e- XLOT # 1 Downhole

Figure 10. Fracture reopening and minimum stress from injection cycle
499