24.01.2014 Views

reservoir geomecanics

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

233 Determination of S 3 from mini-fracs<br />

If the different mechanical properties of the faults were the cause of the rotation,<br />

the orientation of the breakouts would be perturbed over a much greater length of the<br />

wellbores than that observed. Brudy, Zoback et al. (1997) studied breakout and tensile<br />

fracture orientation with depth in the ultradeep KTB research borehole using wellbore<br />

image data and the interactive analysis technique referred to above. They documented<br />

the fact that while the average stress orientation to ∼8 kmdepth was quite consistent,<br />

numerous relatively minor perturbations of stress orientation (at various wavelengths)<br />

are superimposed on the average orientation due to slip on faults at various scales.<br />

Through interactive analysis of the shape of the wellbore at various depths, the<br />

orientation of the breakouts can be accurately determined as a function of depth using<br />

ultrasonic imaging data (Barton, Tessler et al. 1991). The orientation of the breakouts<br />

on the left side of Figure 7.14 are shown by the + symbols in the image on the right.<br />

Barton and Zoback (1994) used dislocation modeling to replicate the observed breakout<br />

rotations in the KTB wellbore at 5.4 km depth (Figure 7.14) and showed how modeling<br />

could be used to constrain the magnitude of S Hmax based on knowing (i) the magnitudes<br />

of S hmin and S v , (ii) the unperturbed orientation of S Hmax and (iii) the strike and dip of<br />

the causative fault. Note that the modeling results (triangles on right hand image) were<br />

used to replicate the breakout rotation observed in televiewer data (left image) which<br />

are shown by + symbols in the right image. The breakouts do not form right next to the<br />

fault that slipped due to the stress drop on the fault (Shamir and Zoback 1992). There<br />

is also a temperature gradient anomaly at the position of this fault due to fluid flow<br />

into the borehole along this fault (see Barton, Zoback et al. (1995). The magnitude of<br />

S Hmax determined from modeling the breakout rotation was consistent with the range<br />

of values obtained from analysis of drilling-induced tensile fractures and breakouts by<br />

Brudy, Zoback et al. (1997)inthis well (Barton and Zoback 1994)asshown by the +<br />

at 5.4 km depth in Figure 7.7.<br />

Summary<br />

In the sections above, we outlined two techniques for determination of the maximum<br />

horizontal principal stress, S Hmax , which use observations of compressive and tensile<br />

wellbore failure in vertical wells. This requires independent knowledge of the least<br />

horizontal principal stress, S hmin , which is determinable from carefully conducted leak<br />

off tests, or mini-fracs. These techniques are extended to deviated wells in Chapter 8.<br />

In numerous field studies, the techniques described above have yielded consistent<br />

values at various depths in a given well and multiple wells in a given field (e.g. Zoback,<br />

Barton et al. (2003). In cases where the wells are drilled in areas of active faulting, the<br />

values obtained for S Hmax are consistent with predictions of frictional faulting theory<br />

(Zoback and Healy 1984; Zoback and Healy 1992; Brudy, Zoback et al. 1997;Townend

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!