reservoir geomechanics week 1 – lecture 1 course overview

Reservoir Geomechanics

In situ stress and rock mechanics applied to reservoir processes !

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

Week 1 – Lecture 1

Course Overview

Mark D. Zoback

Professor of Geophysics

Why is Geomechanics Important?

Drilling and Reservoir Engineering

•  Compaction, Compaction Drive, Subsidence, Production-Induced Faulting Prediction

•  Optimizing Drainage of Fractured Reservoirs

•  Hydraulic Propagation in Vertical & Deviated Wells

•  Wellbore Stability During Drilling (mud weights, drilling directions)

•  Completion Engineering (long-term wellbore stability, sand production prediction)

•  Well Placement (Azimuth and Deviation, Sidetracks)

•  Underbalanced Drilling to Formation Damage


Reservoir Geology and Geophysics

•  Optimizing Drainage of Fractured Reservoirs

•  Pore Pressure Prediction

•  Understanding Shear Velocity Anisotropy

•  Fault Seal Integrity

•  Hydrocarbon Migration

•  Reservoir Compartmentalization


Exploitation of Shale Gas/Tight Gas/Tight Oil

•  Properties of Ultra-Low Permeability Formations

•  How Formation Properties Affect Production

•  Optimizing Well Placement

•  Multi-Stage Hydraulic Fracturing

•  Importance of Fractures and Faults on Well Productivity

•  Interpretation of Microseismic Data

•  Simulating Production from Ultra-Low Permeability

Formations

Text for Class

5

Part I – Basic Principles Chapters 1-5

Part II – Measuring Stress

Orientation and Magnitude

Chapters 6-9

Part III – Applications

Chapters 10-12

Course Syllabus – Part I - Basic Principles

6

Week 1

Lecture 1 – Introduction and Course Overview

Lecture 2 – Ch. 1 - The Tectonic Stress Field

HW-1 Calculating SV from density logs

Week 2

Lecture 3 - Ch. 2 - Pore Pressure at Depth

HW-2 Estimating pore pressure from porosity logs

Lecture 4 - Ch. 3 - Basic Constitutive Laws

Week 3

Lecture 5 - Ch. 4 - Rock Strength

HW-3 Estimating rock strength from geophysical logs

Lecture 6 - Ch. 4 - Fault Friction and Crustal Strength

HW 4 Calculating limits on crustal stress

Week 4

Lecture 7 - Ch. 5 - Faults and Fractures

HW 5 Analysis of fractures in image logs

Course Syllabus – Part II – In Situ Stress

7

Week 4

Lecture 8 - Ch. 6 - Stress Concentrations Around Vertical Wells

Week 5

Lecture 9 - Ch. 7 - Hydraulic Fracturing, Measuring Shmin, Limiting Frac

Height and Constraining Shmax

HW 6 Analysis of stress induced wellbore failures

Lecture 10 - Ch. 8 - Failure of Deviated Wells

Week 6

Lecture 11 - Ch. 9 - State of Stress in Sedimentary Basins

HW 7 Identification of critically-stressed faults

Course Syllabus – Part III - Applications

8

Week 6

Lecture 12 - Ch. 10 - Wellbore Stability -1

Week 7

Lecture 13 - Ch. 10 - Wellbore Stability – 2

Lecture 14 - Ch. 11 - Critically-Stressed Faults and Flow

HW 8 Development of a geomechanical model

Week 8

Lecture 15 - Ch. 11 - Fault Seal and Dynamic Hydrocarbon Migration

Lecture 16 - Ch. 12 - Effects of Depletion, Reservoir Stress Paths

Week 9

Lecture 17 - Ch. 12 - Compaction of Weak Sands and Shales and Subsidence

Course Syllabus – Additional Topics

9

Week 9

Lecture 18 – Geomechanics and Shale Gas/Tight Oil Production - 1

Week 10


Lecture 20 - Geomechanics and Triggered Seismicity

Exploration Appraisal Development Harvest Abandonment

Geomechanical Model

Time

Pr

od

uc

t

io

n

Wellbore Stability

Pore Pressure Prediction

Sand Production Prediction

Compaction

Depletion

Subsidence Casing Shear

Fault Seal/Fracture Permeability

Fracture Stimulation/ Refrac

Coupled Reservoir Simulation

Geomechanics Through the Life of a Field

Components of a Geomechanical Model

Sv – Overburden

SHmax – Maximum horizontal principal stress

Shmin – Minimum horizontal principal stress

Sv

Shmin SHmax

Principal Stresses at Depth

11

UCS Pp

Pp – Pore Pressure

UCS – Rock Strength (from logs)

Fractures and Faults (from Image Logs, Seismic, etc.)

Additional Components of a Geomechanical Model


12

Week 1




Week 2




Week 3





Week 4



Anderson Classification of Relative Stress Magnitudes

Tectonic regimes are defined in terms of the

relationship between

the vertical stress (Sv)

and two mutually

perpendicular horizontal stresses

(SHmax and Shmin)

a.

c.

b.

Sv > SHmax > Shmin

SHmax

Shmin

SvNormal

SHmax > Sv > Shmin

SHmax > Shmin > Sv

Strike-Slip

Reverse

SHmax

Shmin

Sv

Shmin

SHmax

Sv

Range of Stress Magnitudes at Depth

Hydrostatic Pp

Figure 1.4 a,b,c – pg.13


16

Week 1




Week 2




Week 3





Week 4



Variations in Pore Pressure Within Compartments, Each With ~Hydrostatic Gradients

Figure 2.4 – pg.32

Range of Stress Magnitudes at Depth

Overpressure at Depth

Figure 1.4 d,e,f – pg.13


19

Week 1




Week 2




Week 3





Week 4



Laboratory Testing

Str

ess (

MP

a)

Figure 3.2 – pg.58

Constitutive Laws

Figure 3.1 a,b – pg.57

Figure 3.1 c,d – pg.57

Constitutive Laws


23

Week 1




Week 2




Week 3





Week 4



Module 1

• Compressive Strength

• Strength Criterion

• Strength Anisotropy

Module 2

• Shear Enhanced Compaction

• Strength from Logs, HW 3

Module 3

• Tensile Strength

• Hydraulic Fracture Propagation

• Vertical Growth of Hydraulic Fractures


25

Week 1




Week 2




Week 3





Week 4



Limits on Stress Magnitudes

Hydrostatic Pp

Sv −Pp

Shmin −Pp

= 3.1

Shmin =Sv −Pp

3.1+Pp

Shmin ≈ 0.6Sv

Critical Shmin

Critical SHmax

Critical SHmax

SHmax −Pp

Sv −Pp

= 3.1

SHmax = 3.1 Sv −Pp( ) +Pp

SHmax −Pp

Shmin −Pp

= 3.1

SHmax = 3.1 Shmin −Pp( ) +Pp


27

Week 1




Week 2




Week 3





Week 4



Normal

Strike-slip

Reverse

Map View StereonetCross-section

SHmaxShmin

SHmaxShmin

SHmaxShmin

X

shmin

sv

b

sHmax

sv

a.

c.

b.

Sv > SHmax > Shmin

SHmax

Shmin

SvNormal

SHmax > Sv > Shmin

SHmax > Shmin > Sv

Strike-Slip

Reverse

SHmax

Shmin

Sv

Shmin

SHmax

Sv

Stress Regimes and Active Fault Systems


29

Week 4


Week 5





Week 6



Stress Concentration Around a Vertical Well

Compressional and Tensile Wellbore Failure

UBI Well A FMI Well B

Well A


32

Week 4


Week 5





Week 6



Drilling Induced Tensile Wall Fractures

FMI FMS

Visund Field Orientations

Regional Stress Field in the Timor Sea

Complex Stress Field in the Elk Hills Field

Horizontal Principal Stress Measurement Methods

Stress Orientation

Stress-induced wellbore breakouts (Ch. 6)

Stress-induced tensile wall fractures (Ch. 6)

Hydraulic fracture orientations (Ch. 6)

Earthquake focal plane mechanisms (Ch. 5)

Shear velocity anisotropy (Ch. 8)

Relative Stress Magnitude


Absolute Stress Magnitude

Hydraulic fracturing/Leak-off tests (Ch. 7)

Modeling stress-induced wellbore breakouts (Ch. 7, 8)

Modeling stress-induced tensile wall fractures (Ch. 7, 8)

Modeling breakout rotations due to slip on faults (Ch. 7)

Horizontal Principal Stress Measurement Methods

Stress Orientation

Stress-induced wellbore breakouts (Ch. 6)

Stress-induced tensile wall fractures (Ch. 6)

Hydraulic fracture orientations (Ch. 6)


Shear velocity anisotropy (Ch. 8)

Relative Stress Magnitude


Absolute Stress Magnitude

Hydraulic fracturing/Leak-off tests (Ch. 7)

Modeling stress-induced wellbore breakouts (Ch. 7, 8)

Modeling stress-induced tensile wall fractures (Ch. 7, 8)

Modeling breakout rotations due to slip on faults (Ch. 7)

Why do we use these techniques? 1.  Model is developed using data from

formations of interest

1.  Every well that is drilled tests the model

2.  They work!

Obtaining a Comprehensive Geomechanical Model

Vertical stress S v z

0 ( ) = r g dz

0

z 0

ò

Shmin ! LOT, XLOT, minifrac Least principal

stress

SHmax magnitude ! modeling wellbore failures

Max. Horizontal Stress

Pore pressure Pp ! Measure, sonic, seismic

Stress Orientation Orientation of Wellbore failures

Parameter Data

Rock Strength Lab, Logs, Modeling well failure

Faults/Bedding Planes

Wellbore Imaging


40

Week 4


Week 5





Week 6



Wellbore Wall Stresses for Arbitrary Trajectories


42

Week 4


Week 5





Week 6



Generalized World Stress Map

180

180

270

270

0

0

90

90

180

180

-35 -35

0 0

35 35

70 70

SHmax incompressionaldomain

SHmax and Shminin strike-slipdomain

Shmin inextensionaldomain

9-2

M.L. Zoback (1992) and subsequent papers


44

Week 6


Week 7




Week 8



Week 9


Exploration Success Targeting Critically-Stressed Faults in Damage Zones

Hennings et al (2011)

Geomechanical Wellbore Characterization

Wellbores Intersecting Fault Damage Zones

a

d

h

j

k

j

a

k

h

Well a b c d e f g h i j k R2

Well Performance (bcf/d) 0.35 0.13 0.04 0.36 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.01 1.0 1.0

Well/Reservoir Contact Length, m 345 550 560 930 180 420 240 400 50 197 778

Critically-Stressed m=0.5 214 254 204 323 280 350 156 279 16 607 0.67



R2=0.93

0 100 200 300 400

Number of Critically-Stressed Faults

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

We

ll P

erf

orm

an

ce

, b

cf/

da

y

Ma

xim

um

Op

en

-Ho

le F

low

k

d a

f

g

e

i

b

h

c

j


50

Week 6


Week 7




Week 8



Week 9


Depletion in Gulf of Mexico Field X

Pp

S3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Feb-82

Nov-84

Aug-87

May-90

Jan-93

Oct-95

Jul-98

Apr-01

Jan-04

Pp

(p

si)

Pp

S 3

Depletion in Gulf of Mexico Field X

• Elliptical reservoir at 16300 ft

depth with single well at centre

• Reservoir dimensions – 6300 x

3150 x 70 ft, grid – 50 x 50 x 1

• Average permeability – 350

md, !init – 30%

• Oil flow, little/no water influx, no

injection

• IP – 10 MSTB/d, min. BHP -

1000 psi, Econ. Limit – 100

STB/d

• Ran for maximum time of 8000

days

Compaction Drive

Simulation Result - Recovery

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

days

Cum

. O

il,

MM

STB

Elastic strain only

(Constant compressibility)

Compaction drive

Compaction drive with

permeability change

Compaction Drive

National Geographic, October 2004

Oil and gas fields are pervasive

through the region of high rates

of land loss.

Land Loss 1932-2050

Land Gain 1932-2050

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )⎪⎩

⎪⎨

⎧

Δ−=

Δ−−=

∫

∫∞

−

∞−

αααν

αααν

α

α

drJRJepHRCru

drJRJepHRCru

D

mr

D

mz

10

1

00

1

120,

120,

Geertsma Model

( ) ( )∫ Δ=ΔH

m dzzpzCH0

Assuming R>>H, total

reduction in reservoir

height:

For a circular reservoir, surface displacements are:

Study Area: LaFourche Parish

Leeville Subsidence


62

Week 9


Week 10



Current Shale Gas/Tight Oil Research Projects

64

Eagle Ford Shale Pore Structure

50mm

10 mm

500 nm

Shale Permeability is a Million Times

Smaller Than Conventional Reservoir

Horizontal Drilling and Multi-Stage

Slick-Water Hydraulic Fracturing

Induces Microearthquakes (M ~ -1 to M~ -3)

To Create a Permeable Fracture Network

SHmax

Multi-Stage Hydraulic Fracturing

Dan Moos et al. SPE 145849

We Need to Dramatically Improve Recovery Factors

Dry Gas ~25% Petroleum Liquids ~ 5%


67

Week 9


Week 10



Recent Publications

Physical properties of shale reservoir rocks

Sone, H and Zoback, M.D. (2013), Mechanical properties of shale-gas reservoir rocks—Part 1: Static and dynamic elastic properties and anisotropy, Geophysics,

v. 78, no. 5, D381-D392, 10.1190/GEO2013-0050.1

Sone, H and Zoback, M.D. (2013), Mechanical properties of shale-gas reservoir

rocks—Part 2: Ductile creep, brittle strength, and their relation to the elastic modulus, Geophysics, v. 78, no. 5, D393-D402, 10.1190/GEO2013-0051.1

Why slow slip occurs

Kohli, A. H. and M.D. Zoback (2013), Frictional properties of shale reservoir rocks, Journal of Geophysical Research, Solid Earth, v. 118, 1-17, doi: 10.1002/

jgrb. 50346

Zoback, M.D., A. Kohli, I. Das and M. McClure, The importance of slow slip on

faults during hydraulic fracturing of a shale gas reservoirs, SPE 155476, SPE Americas Unconventional Resources Conference held in Pittsburgh, PA, USA 5-7

June, 2012

Recent Publications

Fluid transport/adsorption in nanoscale pores Heller, R., J. Vermylen and M.D. Zoback (2013), Experimental Investigation of

Matrix Permeability of Gas Shales, AAPG Bull., in press.

Heller, R. and Zoback, M.D. (2013), Adsorption of Methane and Carbon Dioxide

on Gas Shale and Pure Mineral Samples, The Jour. of Unconventional Oil and Gas Res., in review.

Viscoplasticity in clay-rich reservoirs Sone, H. and M.D. Zoback (2013), Viscoplastic Deformation of Shale Gas

Reservoir Rocks and Its Long-Term Effects on the In-Situ State of Stress, Intl. Jour. Rock

Mech.,

in review.

Sone, H and M.D. Zoback (2013), Viscous Relaxation Model for Predicting Least Principal Stress Magnitudes in Sedimentary Rocks, Jour. Petrol. Sci. Eng., in

review.

Recent Publications .

Discrete Fracture Network Modeling in Unconventional Reservoirs

Johri, M. and M.D. Zoback, M.D. (2013), The Evolution of Stimulated Reservoir Volume During Hydraulic Stimulation of Shale Gas Formations, URTec 1575434,

Unconventional Resources Technology Conference in Denver, CO, U.S.A., 12-14

August 2013

Case Studies

Yang, Y. and Zoback, M.D., The Role of Preexisting Fractures and Faults During Multi-Stage Hydraulic Fracturing in the Bakken Formation, Interpretation, in press


71

Week 9


Week 10



An Increase in Intraplate Seismicity

Prague, OK*

Nov. 2011 M 5.7

Prague, OK 3 M5+ Eqs

Nov., 2011

About 150,000 Class II EPA Injection Wells Operating in the US Why the Increase in Seismicity?

Zoback (2012)

Ellsworth (2013)

EARTH April, 2012

Managing Triggered

Seismicity

Hurd and Zoback (2012)

Earthquakes Spreading Out Along an Active Fault

Horton (2012)

- Avoid Injection into Potentially Active Faults - Limit Injection Rates (Pressure) Increases

- Monitor Seismicity (As Appropriate)

- Assess Risk

- Be Prepared to Abandon Some Injection Wells

Seismicity Triggered by Injection

Guy Arkansas

Earthquake Swarm

reservoir geomechanics week 1 – lecture 1 course overview

Documents