Topics
Normal Normal
Faulting Reverse Faulting Faulting
ΔS Hor = α
(1 − 2ν ) ΔP α = 1−
Kb
(1 − ν ) p Kg
2
if ν = 0.25, α = 1 ΔS Hor = ΔPp
3
ΔS Hor
Stress Path is defined as: A=
ΔPP
ΔS h ⎛ 1 − 2ν ⎞⎛ π ⎞⎛ h ⎞
=α⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
ΔPp ⎝ 1 − ν ⎠⎝ 4 ⎠⎝ L ⎠
ΔS h ⎛ 1 − 2ν ⎞
= α⎜ ⎟
ΔPp ⎝ 1 −ν ⎠
Stress Path Vs. Biot Coefficient & Poisson’s Ratio
Elastic Solution:
A=α(1-2ν)/(1-ν)
Figure 12.2 – pg. 382
Gulf of Mexico Field X
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Feb-82
Nov-84
A ug-87
May-90
Pp
Pp
Jan-93
Field X
Jul-98
S3
A pr-01
S3
Jan-04
Production Induced Faulting in Normal Faulting Areas
[ SV − ( Pp − ΔPp )]
f (μ ) =
[( Sh min − ΔSh min ) − ( Pp − ΔPp )]
where f ( μ ) = ( μ 2 + 1 + μ ) 2
ΔSh min 1
if A = A* =
ΔPp ( μ 2 + 1 + μ )2
Equation 12.6 – pg. 385
Figure 12.4 a,b – pg. 383
Production-Induced Normal Faulting in the
Valhall Chalk Reservoir, North Sea
NNW-SSE Regional Seismic Section
Valhall Stress Evolution with Production
55
1998
50 SV
1996
45
Depletion 1994
40
1992
Stress [MPa]
35 Normal
1990
Faulting
30
1988
25 μ = 0.9
μ = 0.6 CREST 1986
20
FLANK
1984
15
1982
10
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Pore Pressure [MPa]
(after Zoback & Zinke, 2001)
Normal Faulting in Crest of the Structure (Natural State)
Stress Path Induces Normal Faulting on the Flanks
(Natural State is a Near-Isotropic Stress State)
Wilcox Sands
Eocene-Paleocene, shallow marine sands
interbedded with shale
Vázquez et al.,
TLE 1997 Fault bounded and
compartamentalized by N-S trending
Setting of the Arcabuz-Culebra
Gas Field Syn-depositional growth faults
region undergoing ESE extension
Arcabuz Field, Northeast Mexico
⎛ ν ⎞ ⎛ ν ⎞
Using instantaneous application of force and pressure with no lateral strain:
S Hor =⎜ ⎟( Sv ) + αP ⎜1 − ⎟
⎝ 1 −ν ⎠ ⎝ 1 −ν ⎠
ΔS Hor = α
(1 − 2ν )
Take the derivative of both sides and simplify
ΔPp α = 1−
Kb
(1 − ν ) Kg
2
if ν = 0.25, α = 1 ΔS Hor = ΔPp
3
ΔS Hor
Stress Path: A=
ΔPP
Geometry
After depletion
PORE PRESSURE
CHANGES BY ΔPp
AΔPp
S x = S Hmax + (1 − cos 2θ )
2
AΔPp
S y = S hmin + (1 + cos 2θ ) shear means
2
these aren’t
AΔPp principal
τ xy = sin 2θ stresses
2
anymore!
SHmax rotation
1 ⎡ 2τ xy ⎤ 1 −1 ⎡ AΔPp sin 2θ ⎤
γ = − tan ⎢
−1
⎥ = − tan ⎢ ⎥
2 ⎣⎢ x
S − S ⎥
y ⎦ 2 (
⎣ Hmax
S − S hmin ) − A Δ Pp cos 2θ ⎦
− ΔPp
q=
Defining q
(S Hmax − S hmin )
1 ⎡ − Aq sin 2θ ⎤
Yields γ = − tan −1 ⎢ ⎥
2 ⎣1 + Aq cos 2θ ⎦
A=0.67
q=0
q=1.5
q=10
ΔPp
as increases, so does stress rotation
(S Hmax − S hmin )
Stress Reorientation by Differential Completion
− ΔPp
90
q=
(S Hmax − S hmin )
A= 0.66667
60
2
observed γ
Rotation γ (deg) of SHmax
30
-30
-60
-90
-90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90
Angle θ (deg) from original SH to fault
Arcabuz results
90
84
A= 0.66667
60
40
Rotation γ (deg) of SHmax
30
21
0
-7
-30
-54
-60
-75
-90
-90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90
Angle θ (deg) from original SH to fault
Scott Field Results
A = 2/3
q=2
good fit, but sometimes
overpredicts θ
compartments might
require different q’s in
different parts of the
field?
Water Floods and Hydraulic Fracturing
Lithology
Strike Slip
Injection
Zones
Stress Regime
Application of Results from Geomechanical Analysis
Lower Shmin magnitude in the Rose Run injection zone could
be beneficial to it’s sequestration potential
Shale
Sand Depleted
Shale
Re-Fracture Treatment
Results in Longer
Fracture
Refracturing
US Patent Application
Predicting Changes in Hydrofrac Orientation in Depleting Oil and Gas Reservoirs
by Mark D. Zoback, Amy D.F. Day-Lewis, and Sangmin Kim, Stanford University
Do Stress Rotations Caused by Depletion in Faulted Reservoirs
Enhance the Effectiveness of Repeated Hydraulic Fracturing?
Refracturing
(from Schlumberger)
Do Stress Rotations Caused by Depletion in Faulted Reservoirs
Enhance the Effectiveness of Repeated Hydraulic Fracturing?
Refracturing
Problem
Deviated and horizontal wells can be difficult to
hydraulic fracture because small, inclined
fractures form at the wellbore wall
Solution
In open holes, use directional drilling to
minimize fracture initiation and link-up
pressures
Normal Faulting
Hypothetical Stress
States, Hydrostatic
Pore Pressure
Normal/Strike-
Slip Faulting
Modeling Inclined Tensile Fractures
Link-Up of Inclined Fractures to
Form Larger Fractures
90
50 No Link-up
40
where,
ω f = ω crit
30
⎛ ⎛ ΔS ⎞ −0.72 ⎞
= sin ⎜⎜ 0.57⎜ ⎟ ⎟⎟
−1
20
ω crit
10 Link-up ⎝ ⎝ ΔP ⎠ ⎠
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 and
Δ S/ Δ P
0.1
0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Porosity Change φi/φ
Deformation of Navajo Sand, Moab Fm, Utah
Shear Enhanced Compaction (End Cap)
((Sh+SH+Sv)/3)-Pp (MPa)
Shear Enhanced Compaction (End Cap)
p=
1
3
(σ 1 + σ 2 + σ 3 ) q=
1
2
[
(σ 1 − σ 2 )2 − (σ 1 − σ 3 )2 − (σ 2 − σ 3 )2 ]
Cam-Clay model: M 2 p 2 − M 2 p 0 p + q 2 = 0
DARS
Shmin (MPa)
q (MPa)
Lab Space
Reservoir Space
p (MPa)
Pp (MPa)
DARS
Shmin (MPa)
q (MPa)
Lab Space
Reservoir Space
p (MPa)
Pp (MPa)
Case Study: Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico Field X
Pp (ps i)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Feb-82
Nov-84
A ug-87
May-90
Pp
Pp
Jan-93
Field X
Oct-95
Jul-98
S3
A pr-01
S3
Jan-04
Hydrostatic Compression Tests
Initial porosity
26.5%
Kozeny-Carmen Relationship
∂P k
Darcy’s Law: Q=− A
η ∂x
π 4 ∂P
Laminar flow through a circular pipe: Q=− R
8η ∂x
Effective permeability for the pipe:
⎛ πR 2 ⎞ R 2 Bφ 3 Bφ 3 d 2
k = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = 2 2 =
⎝ A ⎠ 8 τ S τ
k=B
(φ − φc )3 d2
k (φ − φc ) (1 + φc − φi )
=
3 2
(1 + φc − φ )2 ki (φi − φc )3 (1 + φc − φ )2
Equations 12.19 & 12.20 – pg. 405-406
Figure 12.13 a – pg. 404
Louisiana
Texas
Field Z
10000
8000
Pressure (psi)
Pressure (psi)
6000
Well 1
4000
Well 2
Well 3
Well 4
2000 Well 5
Well 6
Well 7
0
5/15/1996
12/1/1996
6/19/1997
1/5/1998
7/24/1998
2/9/1999
8/28/1999
3/15/2000
10/1/2000
4/19/2001
Date
Date
Permeability Reduction
Perm eability Data at Sand U of Field Z
500
450
Well 1
400 Well 2
Well 2
350
Well 3
Well 3
Permeability (mD)
300
250
Well 1
200
150
100
50
Production Tests
Permeability Reduction Vs. Depletion
Perm eability Change Vs Depletion
1.2
Permeability change (k/k0)
Well 1
0.8
Well 2
0.6
0.4
Well 3
0.2
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
D e p l e t i o n ( p si )
Depletion (psi)
200
In-situ permeabilty Well A
150 measurements Reservoir Quality: Moderate
Permeability
100
200
Upper-bound of permeability loss
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Depletion (MPa)
600
Well C
Reservoir Quality: Good
Permeability
400
200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Depletion (MPa)
20
Compaction drive with
permeability change
15
10
5
Elastic strain only
(Constant compressibility)
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
days
•Both conventional cR and no-perm-change curves reached economic limit
•Conventional constant compressibility underestimates the recovery for this case
Field X in GOM
C f = A(σ lab − B )C + D
C f = Δφ Δp
Equation 12.13 – pg. 399
ΔH = ∫ Cm ( z )Δp( z )dz
H
0
Figure 12.17 a,b – pg. 414
Compaction Model
ΔH from creep
compaction law
Subsidence in the Louisiana Coastal Zone due to
Hydrocarbon Production
New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, August 2005
AP photo
National Geographic, October 2004
Current and Projected Regional Land Loss
Vulnerable ecosystem
Americaswetland.com
Vulnerable energy infrastructure
Americaswetland.com
Mechanisms of Coastal Land Loss
Pelican Sand
Bourg Sand
Duval Sand
Exposito Sand
Duval Sand
(mm)
Compaction and Subsidence (All Reservoirs)
Approximate location of
Golden Meadow Fault
Vertical Elevation Changes
Approximate Surface Location of
the Golden Meadow Fault
5
Subsidence (cm)
10
15
20
0 6 12
Distance from Station U (km)
Best fit to Geertsma Epoch 1: 1965-1982
(After Morton et al., 2002)
Time-dependent compaction of shales
↓ pp
↓ pp
From USGS Professional Paper 1401-A, "Ground water in the Central Valley, California- A
summary report“ Photo by Dick Ireland, USGS, 1977
Comparison of subsidence rates in 3 modeled epochs
Coast Inland
Regional Implications
development of a landscape model which can accurately predict future integrated effects of
subsidence and sediment accretion
improved models of fault movement, petroleum extraction, and water pumping to predict the future
extent of subsidence processes
include patterns and rates of subsidence in planning for the use of water and sediment to nourish
and establish wetlands
http://www.agu.org/report/hurricanes