PETE 411 Well Drilling

1
PETE 411Well Drilling
Lesson 22 Prediction of Fracture Gradients
2
Prediction of Fracture Gradients

• Well Planning
• Theoretical Fracture Gradient Determination
• Hubbert Willis
• Matthews Kelly
• Ben Eaton
• Comparison of Results
• Experimental Frac. Grad. Determination
• Leak-off Tests
• Lost Circulation

3
ReadApplied Drilling Engineering, Ch. 6
HW 12Casing Designdue Nov. 1, 2002
4
NOTEOn all HW and Quizzes please put
PETE 411/501 (or 411/502) Name,
written legibly Number of HW or Quiz
(on the outside) Thank you!
5
Well Planning

• Safe drilling practices require that the
  following be considered when planning a well
• Pore pressure determination
• Fracture gradient determination
• Casing setting depth selection
• Casing design
• Mud Design, H2S considerations
• Contingency planning

6
Fig. 7.21
7
(No Transcript)
8
Formation Pressure and Matrix Stress

• Given Well depth is 14,000 ft.
  Formation pore pressure expressed in
  equivalent mud weight is 9.2 lb/gal.
  Overburden stress is 1.00 psi/ft.

Calculate 1. Pore pressure, psi/ft , at
14,000 ft 2. Pore pressure, psi, at 14,000
ft 3. Matrix stress, psi/ft 4. Matrix
stress, psi
9
Formation Pressure and Matrix Stress
S P s
overburden pore
matrix stress pressure
stress (psi)
(psi) (psi)
10
Formation Pressure and Matrix Stress
Depth 14,000 ft. Pore Pressure 9.2
lb/gal equivalent Overburden stress 1.00
psi/ft.

• Calculations
• 1. Pore pressure gradient
• 0.433 psi/ft 9.2/8.33 0.052 9.2
• 0.478 psi/ft
• 2. Pore pressure at 14,000 ft
• 0.478 psi/ft 14,000 ft
• 6,692 psig

11
Formation Pressure and Matrix Stress

• Calculations
• 3. Matrix stress gradient,

psi psi/ft
s / D 0.522 psi/ft
12
Formation Pressure and Matrix Stress

• Calculations
• 4. Matrix stress (in psi) at 14,000 ft
• 0.522 psi/ft 14,000 ft
• s 7,308 psi

13
Fracture Gradient Determination

• In order to avoid lost circulation while drilling
  it is important to know the variation of fracture
  gradient with depth.
• Leak-off tests represent an experimental approach
  to fracture gradient determination. Below are
  listed and discussed four approaches to
  calculating the fracture gradient.

14
Fracture Gradient Determination

• 1. Hubbert Willis
• where F fracture gradient, psi/ft
• pore pressure gradient, psi/ft

15
Fracture Gradient Determination

• 2. Matthews Kelly
• where Ki matrix stress coefficient
• s vertical matrix stress,
  psi

16
Fracture Gradient Determination

• 3. Ben Eaton
• where S overburden stress, psi
• g Poissons ratio

17
Example

• A Texas Gulf Coast well has a pore pressure
  gradient of 0.735 psi/ft. Well depth 11,000
  ft.
• Calculate the fracture gradient in units of
  lb/gal using each of the above four methods.
• Summarize the results in tabular form, showing
  answers, in units of lb/gal and also in psi/ft.

18
Example - Hubbert and Willis

• 1. Hubbert Willis
• The pore pressure gradient,

19
Example - Hubbert and Willis

• Also,

20
Example - Hubbert and Willis
0.8675 psi/ft Fmax 16.68 lb/gal
21
Example

• 2. Matthews Kelly
• In this case P and D are known, may be
  calculated, and is determined graphically.
• (i) First, determine the pore pressure gradient.

22
Example - Matthews and Kelly

• (ii) Next, calculate the matrix stress.

S P s
s S - P 1.00 D - 0.735 D 0.265
D 0.265 11,000 s 2,915 psi
23
Example - Matthews and Kelly

• (iii) Now determine the depth, , where, under
  normally pressured conditions, the rock matrix
  stress, s would be 2,915 psi.

Sn Pn sn
n normal 1.00 Di 0.465 Di 2,915
Di (1 - 0.465) 2,915
24
Example - Matthews and Kelly

• (iv) Find Ki from the plot on the right, for
  
• For a south Texas Gulf Coast well,

Di 5,449 ft
Ki 0.685
25
Example - Matthews and Kelly

• (v) Now calculate F

26
(No Transcript)
27
Example

• Ben Eaton

28
Variable Overburden Stress by Eaton

• At 11,000 ft
• S/D 0.96 psi/ft

29
Fig. 5-5

• At 11,000 ft
• g 0.46

30
Example - Ben Eaton

• From above graphs,
• at 11,000 ft.

F 0.9267 psi/ft 17.82 lb/gal
31
Summary of Results

• Fracture Gradient
• psi.ft lb/gal
• Hubbert Willis minimum 0.823 15.83
• Hubbert Willis maximum 0.868 16.68
• Mathews Kelly 0.917
  17.63
• Ben Eaton 0.927
  17.82

32
Summary of Results

• Note that all the methods take into
  consideration the pore pressure gradient.
  As the pore pressure increases, so does the
  fracture gradient.
• In the above equations, Hubbert Willis
  apparently consider only the variation in
  pore pressure gradient. Matthews Kelly
  also consider the changes in rock matrix stress
  coefficient, and in the matrix stress ( Ki
  and si ).

33
Summary of Results

• Ben Eaton considers
• variation in pore pressure gradient,
  overburden stress and
• Poissons ratio,
• and is probably the most accurate of the four
  methods. The last two methods are actually
  quite similar, and usually yield similar results.

34
Similarities

• Ben Eaton

Matthews and Kelly
35
9
10
11
Pore Pressures
12
14
16
18
36
Experimental Determination of Fracture Gradient

• The leak-off test
• Run and cement casing
• Drill out 10 ft below the casing seat
• Close the BOPs
• Pump slowly and monitor the pressure

37
(No Transcript)
38
45 80 105 120 120 120 120 120 120 40 20
39
(No Transcript)
40
(No Transcript)
41
(No Transcript)
42
Experimental Determination of Fracture Gradient

• Example
• In a leak-off test below the casing seat at 4,000
  ft, leak-off was found to occur when the
  standpipe pressure was 1,000 psi. MW 9
  lb/gal.
• What is the fracture gradient?

43
Example

• Leak-off pressure PS DPHYD
• 1,000 0.052 9 4,000
• 2,872 psi
• Fracture gradient 0.718 psi/ft
• EMW ?