Sunteți pe pagina 1din 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 shmin 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
Fresh water: ~10 MPa/km
8.33 ppg
0.43 psi/frt
~10 MPa pressure (MPa) Sat. NaCl brine: ~12 MPa/km
10 ppg
0.516 psi/ft

Hydrostatic pressure distribution: p(z) = rwgz


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

Overpressured case:
overpressure ratio = p/(rwgz),
a value greater than 1.2
underpressure
overpressure

Normally pressured range:


0.95 < p(norm) < 1.2
depth
Some Definitions
For consistency, some definitions:
Hydrostatic: po = weight column of water
above the point, r = 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% sv
Medium overpressure: po of 60 to 80% sv
Strong overpressure: po > 80% of sv
Abnormal Pressure, Gradient Plot
1.0 2.0
0 Typically, po is close to
hydrostatic in the upper
region

16.7 ppg
1
po
shmin
shmin is close to sv in
2 sv shallow muds, soft
thick shale shale, but lower in stiff
competent deeper shale
sequence
3
A sharp transition zone
4
po
is common (200-600 m)
Target A The OP zone may be 2-3
5 km thick
Target B
A stress reversion zone
6 Target C may exist below OP
depth - kilometres
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
Goodductile shale seals, undercompaction
Watch out for OP related to salt tectonics!
These are most common offshore:
Landbasins 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 & mud
sandstones

clay Anomalously high


clay & shale,
normal line f, low vP, vS, and
mud- other properties
stone may indicate OP
In some cases, 28%
f at depths of 6 km!
shale

effect of OP
on porosity
4-8 km +T
depth slate (deep)
Permeability and Depth
Permeability k Darcies
Muds and shales have 0 1 2 3 4 5
low k, < 0.001 D, and as
Muds and
low as 10-10 D Shales Sands and Sandstones
Exception: in zones of 5

deep fractured shale,

Depth z 1000s ft
k can approach 0.1-1 D
Intact muds and shales
10 have negligible k
Sands decrease in k
with z 15
High porosity OP sands
have anomalously high
Exception, high f porosity & permeability
sands in OP zones can 20
have high k Fractured shales at depth may
Anhydrite, salt k = 0! have high fracture permeability
25
Carbonates, it depends
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 (Df, no drainage)
Mechanisms for OP Generation

Compaction =
H2O expelled to sand
Mud, clays 0-2000 m
bodies, especially
from swelling clays H2H020 Sand H20

Shale 2000-4000 m
Montmorillonite = much H2O
Sandstone

Diagenesis 4000-6000 m

Illite
+ Free H2O Compaction and
Kaolinite
+ SiO2 Clay Diagenesis
Chlorite
Mechanisms for OP Generation
Artesian effect (high elevation recharge)
Thrust tectonics (small effect) rain

Deep thermal expansion

clays and silts

Artesian charging
3-10 km Artesian charging is
usually shallow only Thrusting can lead
to some OP

+DT = +DV of H2O: thermal


20-100 km 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

shale sv
slip planes shale sh
po

Sand bodies that have no


drainage because of fault seals, depth
OP is trapped indefinitely
Stress reversion zone
HC Generation and OP
HCs generated
in organic shales
sv T, p, s
shale increase
kerogen Semi-solid
organics, kerogen,
po < sh < sv

micro- sv
fissure high T, p, s po = sh < sv,
Fractures develop
and grow

sands Pressured fluids are


fluid oil and gas expelled through the
flow fracture network, po
stored in OP sands
generation of hydrocarbon fluids
OP From Gas Cap Development
Thick gas cap development,
A
pressures along A-A perhaps charged from below,
can generate high OP
stress

gas cap,
gas cap low density
effect

oil, density
= 0.75-0.85 A
Gas migration along
fractured zones,
faults, etc.
po sh Deep gas source
Fractured rock
depth 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 Stress gradient plot
stress
PF in sand line shmin sv
shmin sv z z

shale

sandstone

shale

sandstone

limestone

shale
depth depth
Pore pressure distribution, top of OP zone
Some Additional Comments
Casing shoes are set in shales (98%)
The LOT value reflects the higher shmin in
the shales, therefore a higher PF
As we drill deeper, through sands, the
actual shmin 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
1.0 (8.33 ppg) 2.0 (16.7 ppg)
0 Deep water drilling,
Sea water depth 800 m
mud heavier than H2O
1
800 m soft sediments Thick soft sediments
2000 m medium stiff
section, PF ~ sh ~ sv
Thin, shallow, gas-
2 shales and silts

charged sand
po sh sv
Zone where sh is
3

roughly unchanged
seal sharp
transition

Sharp transition zone


4
1400 m OP zone
High OP, 90% of sv
5
Deep zone of stress
Reversion
6
zone and pressure reversion
Z kilometers (3279 ft/km)
Upper Part of Hole
1.0 (8.33 ppg) 2.0 (16.7 ppg)
0 The vertical lines are
several MW choices
9.16 ppg
10.0 ppg

Sea water - 800 m


Riser and first csg. MW
9.16 ppg does not
1 control gas, but only
800 m soft sediments fractures above 950 m
10.0 ppg controls gas,
but losses above 1200 m
will be a problem. It
2
does allow deeper drlg.
Solution, riser seat at
Medium stiff ~1000 m
Casing shoe at ~1400 m
shales and silts

Z kilometers (3279 ft/km)


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 D-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
1.0 (8.33 ppg) 2.0 (16.7 ppg)
0 LOT of 1.3, 10.83 ppg
Sea water - 800 m This limits us to 3.6 km
for the next casing
However, this will
1
800 m soft sediments
require a liner to go
2000 m shales through transition zone
and silts
Liner from 3600 m to
2

3750 3800 m
po sh sv If it is possible to drill
3
100 m deeper initially,
sharp
to 3700 m, we may save
transition the liner ($1,000,000)
4 OP zone

Z kilometers (3279 ft/km)


Solution A: Casing or Liners
1.0 (8.33 ppg) 2.0 (16.7 ppg)
0 This is the most
Sea water conservative, safest,
and the most costly
1
Black line is MWmax
If shale problems
2000 m shales occur in the 1.6-3.6 km
shale zone, requiring
2 and silts

an extra casing (i.e.,


po sh sv little margin for error)
3

4 OP zone

Z kilometers (3279 ft/km)


Soln B: Drill OB With LCM?
1.0 (8.33 ppg) 2.0 (16.7 ppg)
0 Dashed line is from
Sea water the previous slide
Drilling with the purple
1
line, saves a liner!
This is ~1.2 ppg OB at
2000 m shales the shoe (quite a bit!)
and silts
2 Place upper casings
deeper if possible
Drill with LCM in mud
po sh sv (see analysis approach
3
in Additional Materials)
Place a denser pill at
final casing trip
4 OP zone (Approach with caution)

Z kilometers (3279 ft/km)


Solution C: Deeper Upper Casings
1.0 (8.33 ppg) 2.0 (16.7 ppg)
0 300 m subsea primary
Sea water casing depth
Casing at 1850 m depth
Drill long shale section
1

with MW shown as
dashed black line
Increase MW only in
2

Slight OB last 100 m (LCM to plug


needed
ballooning at the shoe)
Slight OB of 0.2-0.3
3

sh sv ppg needed
po Casing may be saved (?)
4 OP zone

Z kilometers (3279 ft/km)


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 (sh) is quite low around 3000 m subsea
Transition zone is very sharp (~250 m)
OP is high (88-90% of sv)

However, it could even be worse!


More gas zones, depleted reservoirs at 3.6 km
Etc
Drilling Through a Reversion Zone
Below OP, usually a zone where po, sh (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 sh
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, sv
horizontal stress, sh
pore pressure, po

Note that shmin can become > sv

4 km
depth Region of strong
overpressure

Higher k rocks Stresses revert to


Z (fractured shales) more ordinary state
Same Example
1.0 (8.33 ppg) 2.0 (16.7 ppg)

OP casing was set at


3800 m depth
Drill with 16.7 ppg MW
4
1400 m OP zone

At 5.5 km, large losses


If we reduce MW,
high po at 4.6 km can
5
blow out, flow to
bottom hole at 5.5 km
Reversion
zone (reverse internal BO)
Set casing at 5450 m
Drill ahead with
6 po sh sv reduced MW

Z kilometers (3279 ft/km)


Real Deep Overpressure Drilling
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

This is a deep North Sea case, west of Shetlands


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 sv 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) Log of sonic transit time
0
Sea water depth 800 m 650 ms/m

1 Soft seds. Normal trend from the


basin, offset data
Seismic
Stiff shales
2 velocity
and silts
model

3 po sv Sonic transit time


seal Expected OP from offset wells
transition
4 PROGNOSES FROM
Critical region
OFFSET WELL OP zone
DATA, CORRECTED
5 FOR Z, ETC
Reversion
zone
6

Z kilometers (3279 ft/km)


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 Regions of substantial


deviation are highlighted as
critical, experience used to
choose likely top of OP

Large OP expected 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
Well A
1b
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:
Drillingexponent 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
1.0 (8.33 ppg) 2.0 (16.7 ppg)
0 Use a rock mechanics
Sea water depth 800 m
borehole stability model,
1 Soft seds. calibrated, to estimate
Weak rocks MWmin from geophysical
2
Stiff shales
and silts
logs and lab data
Use offset well losses,
3 sv ballooning, LOT, etc. to
po Expected OP estimate MWmin
transition
4 PROGNOSES FROM This defines the local
OFFSET WELL
safe MW window
OP zone
DATA, CORRECTED
Now, combine with casing
5 FOR Z, ETC
Reversion
Strong rocks
zone program prognosis to plan
6 the MW for the well

Z kilometers (3279 ft/km)


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 1.9 2.1 2.3
density, g/cm3
prognosis
for shmin
MW Previous
prognosis =1.92 casing
for po string
sv
XLOT shmin
value

overpressure shoe
transition zone
deeper shoe for
area indicates casing string!
possible MW
depth 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)
WELL DESIGN - HI 133 No. 1 EXPECTED MW (PPG)
MW, PF, & EST. po FRAC GRAD. (SAND)
FRAC. GRAD (SHALE)
0
1000
2000
3000
DEPTH - ft

4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
MUD WEIGHT - ppg
Same Overpressured Well, GoM
WELL DESIGN - HI 133 No. 1
MW, PF, & ESTIMATED po
0

1000

2000 PORE PRESSURE (PPG)


EXPECTED MW (PPG)
3000
FRAC GRAD. (SAND)
FRAC. GRAD (SHALE)
4000

5000
DEPTH

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
MUD WEIGHT
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!
Livingwith breakouts for lower MW
Using LCM to generate somewhat higher PF
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
16 Penny Shape

14
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

12

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Young modulus (GPa)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.


Classical results: effect of the Poisson coefficient

PKN
7 Penny Shape

6
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Poisson coefficient

Courtesy Geomec a.s.


Classical results: effect of the fracture width

12

PKN
Penny Shape
10
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Fracture width (mm)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.


Classical results: effect of the fracture height

40

PKN
35 Penny Shape

30
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

25

20

15

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Fracture height/radius (m)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.


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

3.5
Fracture width at wellbore (mm)

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
time (min)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.


Modified PKN model: effect of Young modulus

30.0

25.0
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Young Modulus (GPa)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.


Modified PKN model: effect of Poisson coefficient

18.0

16.0

14.0
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

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 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Poisson coefficient
Courtesy Geomec a.s.
Modified PKN model: effect of mud viscosity

25.0

20.0
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Mud viscosity (cP)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.


Modified PKN model: effect of mud loss rate

30.0

25.0
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mud loss rate (bbl/min)
Courtesy Geomec a.s.
Modified PKN model: effect of plugging time

100.0

90.0

80.0
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Plugging time (min)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.


Modified PKN model: effect of Rate of penetration

120.0

100.0
Hoop stress increase (MPa)

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Rate Of Penetration (m/hr)

Courtesy Geomec a.s.


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
sq is increased permanently by propping
The effect is limited in extent, but the sq
stress does not relax during drilling
The LCM is designed (concentration, size
range) based on the mud parameters
: www.geomec.com for further details