Reservoir Geomechanics - Amazon S3€¦ · Reservoir Geomechanics In situ stress and rock mechanics...
Transcript of Reservoir Geomechanics - Amazon S3€¦ · Reservoir Geomechanics In situ stress and rock mechanics...
Reservoir Geomechanics
In situ stress and rock mechanics applied to reservoir processes ��� ���������������������
Week 4 – Lecture 8 Stress Concentrations/Vertical Wells – Chapter 6
Mark D. Zoback Professor of Geophysics
Section 1 • Stress Concentration Around Vertical Wells
Section 2 • Wellbore Breakouts (Compressive Wall Failures) Section 3 • Drilling Induced Tensile Failures (Tensile Wall
Failures)
Section 4 • Other Factors Affecting Breakouts
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
2
Outline
After Kirsch (1898)
Local stress field perturbed due to the borehole
Figure 6.1 – pg. 169
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
3
θτ
θνσ
σθσ
θσ
θ
θθ
2sin)321)((21
2cos)(2
2cos)31)((21)1)(2(
21
2cos)341)((21)1)(2(
21
4
4
2
2
minr
2
2
min
2
20
4
4
min2
2
0min
2
20
4
4
2
2
min2
2
0min
max
max
maxmax
maxmax
rR
rRSS
RrSSS
rRP
rRSS
rRPSS
rRP
rR
rRSS
rRPSS
h
hvzz
Thh
hhrr
H
H
HH
HH
−+−=
−−=
−−+−−+−+=
++−−+−−=
Δ
−
Kirsch Eqns. –Vertical Well, Stress Field (SHmax, Shmin) Internal Pressure P0, Θ measured from SHmax
R – Wellbore radius r – radial distance from center
Equations 6.1 - 6.3 – pg. 170
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
4
Parameters for Figures 6.2, 6.3, & 6.5
MPa5.31 MPa5.51
3213m) (depth MPa 2.88west)-(east EN90 is norientatio
MPa90
min
max
max
==
=
=
=
mudp
h
v
H
H
PPSSSS
Example Parameters – pg. 170
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
5
Figure 6.2 a,b,c – pg. 171 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
6
Concentration of Hoop Stress
Stress Concentration at the Wall of a Vertical Well
Compressive and tensile wellbore failure is a direct result of the stress concentration around the wellbore that results from drilling a well into an already-stressed rock mass. In a homogeneous and isotropic elastic material in which one principal stress acts parallel to the wellbore axis, the effective hoop stress and radial stress at the wall of a cylindrical, vertical wellbore (overburden stress, Sv is a principal stress acting parallel to the wellbore axis) is given by the following equation:
σθθ = Shmin + SHmax - 2(SHmax - Shmin) cos2θ - 2P0 - ΔP – σΔT
σrr = ΔP where θ is an angle measured from the azimuth of the maximum horizontal stress, SHmax,
Shmin is the minimum horizontal stress, P0 is the pore pressure, ΔP is the difference between the wellbore pressure (mud weight) and the pore pressure, and σΔT is the thermal stress induced by the cooling of the wellbore by ΔT.
The effective stress acting parallel to the wellbore axis is:
σzz = SV - 2ν(SHmax - Shmin) cos2θ – P0 - σΔT where ν is Poisson's ratio.
Equations 6.4 - 6.6 – pg. 174 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
7
Section 1 • Stress Concentration Around Vertical Wells
Section 2 • Wellbore Breakouts (Compressive Wall Failures) Section 3 • Drilling Induced Tensile Failures (Tensile Wall
Failures)
Section 4 • Other Factors Affecting Breakouts
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
8
Outline
Stress Concentration Around a Vertical Well
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
9
wBO
SHmax
Figure 6.4 a,b,c – pg. 176 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
10
Wellbore Failures
Compressional Wellbore Failures
Stress-induced wellbore breakouts form due to compressive wellbore failure that occurs within the region of maximum compressive stress around a wellbore. In a vertical well, the zone of compressive failure is centered at the azimuth of minimum horizontal far-field compression, as this is where the compressive hoop stress is greatest.
• Wellbore breakouts were first identified using 4-arm magnetically-oriented caliper logs associated with Schlumberger dip meters. Careful analysis yields reliable stress orientations.
• Clear identification of breakouts requires the use of acoustic televiewer data (UBI, CBIL, CAST).
• 6-arm dip meter data (Baker Hughes and Halliburton) require especially careful analysis to distinguish breakouts from tool eccentricity, key seating, etc.
• The caliper data from 4- and 6- arm electrical image data (FMI, STAR, or EMI) cannot be used to detect small wellbore breakouts because of the large pad widths of these tools.
• Breakouts can sometimes be seen as out-of-focus zones on the image data
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
11
A Simple View of Wellbore Stability
σ1
σ2
σ3
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
12
Regional Stress Field in the Timor Sea
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
13
Why Wellbore Failure So Effectively Samples the Stress Field
At the point of minimum compression around the wellbore (i.e, at θ = 0, parallel to SHmax), Equation (1) reduces to
σθθ
min = 3Shmin - SHmax - 2P0 - ΔP - σΔT
Whereas, at the point of maximum stress concentration around the
wellbore (i.e, at θ = 90°, parallel to Shmin),
σθθmax = 3SHmax - Shmin - 2P0 - ΔP - σΔT
σθθ
max - σθθmin = 4 (SHmax- Shmin)
Equations 6.7 - 6.9 – pg. 174
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
14
Raising Mud Weight Increases Wellbore Stability
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
15
Figure 6.3 a,b,c – pg. 173 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
16
Breakout Width
Figure 6.5 a,b – pg. 177
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
17
Raising Mud Weight
Wellbore Stress Concentration – Same Depth, Different Stress States
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
18
Figure 6.8 a,b – pg. 182 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
19
Regional Stress Fields
Figure 6.10 – pg. 184 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
20
Complex Stress Field
4-Arm Dipmeter Tool Schematic
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
21
Figure 6.9 a,b,c – pg. 183 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
22
Analyzing 4-Arm Caliper Log
“Elongation” Directions in the Visund Field
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
23
Keyseats in Bore Hole Televiewer (BHTV)
tan 2° x 1000ft = 35 ft Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
24
Figure 6.11a,b,c – pg. 185 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
25
6-Arm Caliper Data
Figure 6.12a,b,c – pg. 186
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
26
Comparison of Analysis Techniques
Quality Ranking System (Zoback and Zoback)
A B C D Earthquake Focal Mechanisms
Average P-axis or formal inversion of four or more single-event solutions in close geographic proximity (at least one event M ≥ 4.0, other events M ≥ 3.0)
Well-constrained single-event solution (M ≥ 4.5) or average of two well-constrained single-event solutions (M ≥ 3.5) determined from first motions and other methods (e.g., moment tensor wave-form modeling, or inversion)
Single-event solution (constrained by first motions only, often based on author's quality assignment) (M ≥2.5) Average of several well-constrained composites (M ≥ 2.0)
Single composite solution Poorly constrained single-event solution Single-event solution for M < 2.5 event
Wellbore Breakouts Ten or more distinct breakout zones in a single well with S.D. ≤ 12o and/or combined length > 300 m Average of breakouts in two or more wells in close geographic proximity with combined length > 300 m and S.D. ≤ 12o
At least six distinct breakout zones in a single well with S.D. ≤ 20o and/or combined length > 100 m
At least four distinct breakouts with S.D. < 25o and/or combined length > 30 m
Less than four consistently oriented breakout or > 30 m combined length in a single well Breakouts in a single well with S.D. ≥ 25o
Drilling-Induced Tensile Fractures
Ten or more distinct tensile fractures in a single well with S.D. ≤ 12o and encompassing a vertical depth of 300m, or more
At least six distinct tensile fractures in a single well with S.D. ≤ 20o and encompassing a combined length > 100 m
At least four distinct tensile fractures with S.D. < 25o and encompassing a combined length > 30 m
Less than four consistently oriented tensile fractures with < 30 m combined length in a single well . Tensile fracture orientations in a single well with S.D. ≥ 25o
Hydraulic Fractures Four or more hydrostatic orientations in a single well with S.D. ≤ 12o depth > 300 m Average of hydrofrac orientations for two or more wells in close geographic proximity, S.D. ≤ 12o
Three or more hydrofrac orientations in a single well with S.D. <20o. Hydrofrac orientations in a single well with 20o.< S.D. <25o
Hydrofac orientations in a single well with 20o < S.D. <25o Distinct hydrofrac orientation change with depth, deepest measurements assumed valid One or two hydrofrac orientations in a single well
Single hydrofrac measurements at < 100 m depth
Table 6.1 – pg. 189 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
27
Statistics of Azimuthal Data
ksd
RNNk
lmmlR
R
mm
R
llml
m
n
ii
n
ii
n
ii
n
ii
iiii
81 ; 1
tan ;
and ; sin and cos
1
11
2
11
=−−
=
⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎝
⎛=+=
====
−
==
==
∑∑
∑∑
θ
θθ
Equations 6.10 - 6.15 – pg. 190 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
28
Drilling Induced Tensile Fractures A drilling-induced tensile wall fracture will be induced when
σθθmin = 3Shmin – SHmax – 2Pp – ΔP – σΔT
Ignoring σΔT (for the moment) and assuming To ~ 0, a tensile fracture will from at the wellbore wall when:
Pmud = 3Shmin – SHmax – Pp ≈ 0
This is the same equation for inducing a hydraulic fracture. What distinguishes a drilling-induced tensile fracture from a hydraulic fracture are:
• Drilling-induced tensile fractures form when the mud weight is comparable, or slightly greater than the pore pressure (but is not comparable to S3). This only occurs for certain stress states and well orientations.
• Drilling-induced tensile fractures are limited to the wellbore wal.l Because the fracture does not propagate into the formation, drilling-induced tensile fractures are not associated with lost circulation or drilling problems.
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
29
Section 1 • Stress Concentration Around Vertical Wells
Section 2 • Wellbore Breakouts (Compressive Wall Failures) Section 3 • Drilling Induced Tensile Failures (Tensile Wall
Failures)
Section 4 • Other Factors Affecting Breakouts
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
30
Outline
Figure 6.5 a,b – pg. 177 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
31
Drilling-Induced Tensile Fractures
wBO
SHmax
Figure 6.4 a,b,c – pg. 176 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
32
Wellbore Failures
Drilling-Induced Tensile Fractures
Figure 6.6 a,b,c – pg. 179 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
33
Visund Field Orientations
Figure 6.7 a,b – pg. 180 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
34
Drilling Induced Tensile Fractures — Visund Field
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
35
Tensile Fractures in Vertical Wells Generally Imply a Strike-Slip Faulting Environment
Earth (Strike-Slip Faulting)
( ) 1.31PSPS 2
2
pminh
pmaxH =µ++µ=−
−for µ = 0.6
SHmax = 3.1 Shmin – 2.1 Pp
SHmax = 3Shmin – 2Pp + 0.1 (Shmin – Pp)
Vertical Wellbore (Tensile Fractures)
σθθ = 3Shmin – SHmax – 2Pp = -T for T = 0
SHmax = 3Shmin – 2Pp
Equations 6.16 - 6.19 – pg. 191 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
36
Tensile Fractures in Vertical Wells
Figure 6.13 – pg. 193 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
37
Section 1 • Stress Concentration Around Vertical Wells
Section 2 • Wellbore Breakouts (Compressive Wall Failures) Section 3 • Drilling Induced Tensile Failures (Tensile Wall
Failures)
Section 4 • Other Factors Affecting Breakouts
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
38
Outline
Thermoelastic Effects on Wellbore Stresses
The effect at the wellbore wall of a temperature difference ΔT between the wellbore fluid and the rock surrounding well is given by the equation:
σθθΔT = (α E ΔT)/(1-ν)
where α is the linear coefficient of thermal expansion and E is Young's modulus.
For drilling-induced tensile fractures in the Visund field in the North
Sea, a cooling of ~30° C at a depth of ~2750 m resulted in σθθΔT = 1.7 MPa based on the following: α = 2.4x10-6 °C-1 (corresponding to a rock composed of 50% quartz), E = 1.9x104 MPa (from the measured P-wave velocity) and ν = 0.2 (based on the P to S-wave velocity ratio).
Equation 6.22 – pg. 193
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
39
a)
b)
c)
Cooling does reduce breakout size (but not very practical) -The effect on tensile fractures is more important (but still not as important as mud weight).
Thermal Stresses and Breakout Formation
Figure 6.14 a,b,c – pg. 194 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
40
Tensile Fractures in Vertical Wells
Figure 6.13 a,b,c – pg. 193
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
41
Fixed Breakout Width After Initiation
More on Compressional Wellbore Failure
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
42
Breakout Shapes Under Successive Episodes of Failure – wBO is constant
Figure 6.15 a,b – pg. 197 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
43
wBO
a)
b) c)
Breakouts > 90° ?
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
44
Weak Bedding Planes Can Be a Source of Wellbore Instability
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
45
Breakouts in Sands (Isotropic Strength) Deviated Well
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
46
Anisotropic Strength Causes Unusual Breakouts in Shale
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
47
Weak Bedding Planes Can Be a Source of Wellbore Instability
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
48
Impact of Chemical Effects on Wellbore Stability
Mody & Hale (1993) model for chemical osmosis: (Non time-dependent)
P = Pp + β × RT/V × ln(Am/Ap)
P: Near-wellbore pore pressure [MPa] Pp: Far-field pore pressure [MPa] β: Membrane efficiency [ ], 0 ≤ β ≤ 1 (OBM has a membrane efficiency of 1) R: Gas constant, = 8.3 [J/(mol x degree Kelvin)] T: Absolute temperature [degree Kelvin] V: Partial molar volume of water [m3/mol] Am: Water activity in drilling fluid [ ] Ap: Water activity in pore fluid (an activity of 1 corresponds to fresh water) [ ]
Pore pressure in the near wellbore zone is affected by fluid transport due to differences in water molar free energies of the drilling and pore fluids (chemical osmosis).
Poroelasticity equations are explicitly correct only for zero time, just after drilling.
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
49
Illustration of Mody & Hale Model
• According to the Mody & Hale model, high salinity muds stabilize the formation, because chemical osmosis causes a drop in formation pressure (increase in σrr) near the wellbore wall.
• Conversely, a low salinity mud destabilizes the formation because chemical osmosis “charges” the formation and σrr increases near the wellbore wall.
Formation Wellbore
Pp
High PMud
Mud Activity < Formation Fluid Activity���(High Salinity Mud)
σrr
Formation Wellbore
Pp
High PMud
σrr
Mud Activity > Formation Fluid Activity���(Low Salinity Mud)
β × RT/V × ln(Am/Ap)
β × RT/V × ln(Am/Ap)
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
50
A Simple View of Maintaining Wellbore Stability
σ1
σ2
σ3
Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
51
Figure 6.5 a,b – pg. 177 Stanford|ONLINE gp202.class.stanford.edu
52
Drilling-Induced Tensile Fractures